Posted on 03/27/2012 9:51:02 AM PDT by C19fan
The mandate component is the lynchpin for the whole shebang. If it goes, very likely the whole program goes. Obama would then have to find new sources of funding it.
I read the transcripts from yesterday.
Thing is, there are things going on kind of behind the scenes (or at least cloaked in terminology) that SUGGESTS to me that even if the law passes, it will be one of those things that are actually voluntary.
They specifically mentioned Article III courts yesterday, and that is very, very telling...
Typical performance for a Legal Top Dog selected by an unproven (NO academic credentials that evidence his degrees), affirmative action, white-guilt, black biased poser that is a halfrican Muslim.
This case, unlike most SCOTUS cases, is easy for common folks to understand. Can the federal government force you to buy something, and if so what are the limits to this new federal power? The recent contraceptive mandate helped inform even the Oprah/Jon Stewart crowd.
Liberals on this court will have to literally urinate on the Constitution in order to uphold Obamacare.
Common folks may like the idea of healthcare reform, but not tyranny.
Ya ya.
SCOTUS is not inclined to toss out entire laws, but to instead find any/all contortions needed to preserve the law in question to the greatest extent possible. If they can find _any_ way the “individual mandate” could be construed as legal, they’ll find & implement it.
Regardless, it is somewhat heartening to hear of the Administration's Top Legal Dog getting his ass handed to him by one of his own.
My prediction:
The court will decide the mandate is not enforceable but not unconstitutional. No penalties will be able to be legally collected.
A collective WTF will follow.
That meeting happened the day of his inauguration, before he was sworn in, IIRC.
CA....
I think the mandate will get struck down as unconstitutional.
Most Americans, I think, have a very uneasy feeling about the mandate.
Striking it down would signal 2 things:
That in a certain sense, the SC still works for the American people
It would be a message to government to go back to Congress and try to figure out another way of doing things.
I bet all 9 justices read all 2,200 pages of the bill before them. I’m sure they all cross referenced each citation as well.
Following that, I bet they read every brief and position that lawyers have presented for and against.
I’m confident they know what is at stake here.
(sarcasm)
Didn’t they get the Pelosi memo about the “ironclad” constitutionality of Obamacare?
There is a lot to dislike about Obama besides Obamacare — a lack of transparency about his past life, for instance.
Do not be mislead by such dialogue. The Court must do this; however, it is no indication of the final decision.
I have been commenting on these hearings and have heavily cautioned against becoming overconfident.
The real game play of all plays, the real play that determines the winner is severability.
I do not believe the SCOTUS will deny severability outright.
But it would be a beautiful thing if SCOTUS sent the law back to Congress to vote on severability. And I wonder if SCOTUS could send something back to Congress to reconsider, before SCOTUS made a ruling.
Because a revote on severability would be a stake through the malicious heart of Obamacare. The House would vote against severability, so if SCOTUS ruled against say the individual mandate, without implied severability the whole Law would go down and cease to exist.
According to CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”
&&&
And here’s to many, many more.
I would expect an overturned fed mandate would cause obamunists to kick the states into adopting a system of uniform state mandates via federal bullying and federal support ala the old speed limit laws.
IOW states do it or else.
Audio and transcripts of todays arguments are up.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday
Audio and transcripts of todays arguments are up.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday
Grrrr.... reading the transcripts is gettin me hot!!
Gummint trying to justify it through the commerce clause but they are basically arguing PURE SOCIALISM!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.