Skip to comments.Supreme Court Update: Swing Vote Justice Kennedy Harshly Questions Obamacare – Strike Down Likely?
Posted on 03/27/2012 12:31:30 PM PDT by TexasConservativeRepublican
The second day of the Obamacare trial at the U.S. Supreme Court has wrapped up.
The first day was not filled with much of the meat and potatoes that everyone has waited to see. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott posted this video update about the first day of the trial. This second day of the Obamacare trial is EXACTLY what people have been waiting for. This second day focused on the Constitutionality and Consequences of the individual mandate.
Justice Kennedy is believed to be the swing vote. If he goes against Obamacare, then the Healthcare Law gets struck down. If he is for it, then Obamacare is upheld.
Justice Kennedy had some of the harshest questions about Obamacare in the trial today. This leads me to believe that he is really questioning the constitutionality of Obamacare and the effects it might have if the government was allowed to have this much power.
Hopefully this is an indication that Kennedy will strike down Obamacare!
The most striking questions that Justice Kennedy asked today were:
How can the government create a market for the purpose of enabling it to regulate that market?
Isnt it true that this law, if undisturbed, would profoundly change the relationship of the federal government and individual Americans?
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott later today will likely put out a more in-depth summary of day 2 of the Obamacare Trial in the Supreme Court.
For now, it is great following Greg Abbott's tweets from the Supreme Court.
Below are a couple of Abbott's tweets from today:
(Excerpt) Read more at texasgopvote.com ...
if the decision comes down to one justice, the mob can influence how that judge decides pretty easily
I wonder what this will do to the president’s command that companies have to provide free products to people.
I pray it does get struck down.
You’re going WAY out on a limb to think you can predict anything based on questioning. As Forbes pointed out, the Constitutionalist judges in 2009 questioned vehemently during the Voting Rights Act case, making everyone think an overturn was coming. It didn’t. The Citizens United case basically gutted the whole McCain Feingold law, yet no one saw that coming based on the courtroom debate.
Don’t get ahead of yourself. There is NO way to tell what’s gonna happen here.
:: How can the government create a market for the purpose of enabling it to regulate that market? ::
Bingo. Props for Kennedy.
My personal opinion of this, is that if they do not turn this over and kill this garbage bill, America is done. Completely and utterly done. Where a government can demand that citizens do what it says. Where government rules. Why the heck did we fight the Brits for our freedom if we are going to become subjects to the socialists here in our own country. If the Supremes do not turn this over, America is totally socialist. The days of freedom are gone. We are prisoners in our own land.
It means nothing and just gives cover to the pusillanimity of the judiciary
That's my read, as well. The result will be secession, if not of states then of millions of people. The statement that, "I love my country, but I fear my government" will be true for millions more, and many of them will simply have as little to do with the tyrants as possible; further, I believe (and hope) that many will engage in acts of passive resistance to hasten the downfall of the system, so as to rebuild with something better down the road.
“Oral Argument is just so much kabuki theater”
So is posting that line freaking everywhere.
Have learned past 3+ years.... judicial’ tuff-talk’, does not mean tuff action.
Correct on all points!
Agressive questioning could also mean he wants the administration to do a better job so his ass will be covered.
I fear that the 4 conservative justices will do exactly as expected and the liberal justices likewise. Kennedy will muck it up by giving some sort of 50-50 decision, where he will partially agree with both sides, which will basically allow the left to win. Sandra Day O’Connor did something similar in the Webster case in 1989. This case would have overturned Roe v Wade, but she was the swing vote, and gave some namby pamby opinion which basically kept Roe v Wade intact. It was at first heralded a victory for our side, but in the long run it did nothing. Kennedy at that time voted with the conservatives.