Skip to comments.CNN: Today was a 'train wreck' for Obamacare
Posted on 03/27/2012 1:02:34 PM PDT by Semper911
CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that it was a rough day for the Obama administration, as lawyers worked to defend the Obamacare's individual mandate.
"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," Tobin said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong."
Tobin said that U.S. Solicitor General David Verrilli was woefully unprepared in his defense.
"I don't know why he had a bad day, he is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices," he said.
"If I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate." he said.
Tobin was not alone in his analysis. NBC's Justice corespondent Pete Williams was also skeptical.
"It would seem at this point in the process that I think it's very doubtful that the court is going to find the health care law constitutional," he said, "I don't see five votes to find the law constitutional."
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
I think you have a very good point.
If Obamacare is sustained by the Supremes then in November, many people will be angry and vote against it by voting against Obama.
Where is that incentive if the Supremes strike it down?
I have the same, gnawing feeling, too.
I pray we're both wrong and that the USSC preserves and defends our Constitution and overturns this garbage.
“Where is that incentive if the Supremes strike it down?”
1. Creeping socialism
2. $4.00+ gas
3. High unemployment
5. Racial demagoguery
6. Afghan war
You want more?
“You can’t use a ‘tax’ as a penalty”
I’m wondering how far that goes.
How about taxes designed to discourage participation in otherwise lawful commerce? The $200 NFA transfer tax in particular, intended to dissuade people from silencers, short shotguns, and other fringe firearms: it doesn’t bring in any appreciable revenue (like liquor taxes do), it exists for the sole purpose of discouragement akin to a poll tax.
This “individual mandate” case will draw a line; will be interesting to see how that can be leveraged for other freedoms.
I like your reply.... buT what majority
In debating, it is often the case that one must defend a proposition that one does not really believe in. Lawyers do this all the time.
Take, for instance, the position of being the defense lawyer of a criminal whom one privily knows is flat-out guilty, but under the law deserves the best defense possible; so that when found guilty, it will not be for lack of sloppy lawyering.
Could it be that Kagan, though as a condition of employment, and thus required to prepare the case law for Obamacare, really as a Justice cannot support it under the Constitution, and hence will not recuse herself on this??
One never knows until the final verdict is returned.
Look at other appointments: Warren (Eisenhower, school prayer, etc.), Blackmun (Nixon, R. v. W.), Souter (G. H. W. Bush, for abortion, etc liberal), Clarence (G. H. W. B., solid constructionist!), Obama (Kagan, ?????).
One might hope for a better result than anticipated --- but, ??
From Wiki: "In 1996, future Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the O'Brien court did not appear to be concerned whether the law as enacted or enforced 'matched, or even resembled' the asserted government interest of stopping draft resistance protests. Kagan noted that the law prohibiting the destruction of the draft card 'interfered' with only one point of view: that of the anti-war protester. She allowed as how a successful challenge to O'Brien might come from focusing on such skewed constraints."
Being a little even-handed, Kagan's preparation for the judiciary is formidable in both pragmatic and academic efforts. Who knows?
If individuals are forced to buy healthcare where does it stop?
Imagine the government auditing neighborhoods for old and energy inefficient windows. Afterall, everyone needs energy for their home. Why can’t the government then tax folks for wasting energy if they don’t have the best windows available?
Same with cars. Everyone driving a gas-guzzler is causing a higher demand for energy and increased costs that are passed on to everyone. Tax folks driving a car that doesn’t meet minimum mileage standards.
In fact, doesn’t everyone need a car in this country? Tax everyone who doesn’t have a car. Folks that live in rural areas all need cars. Taxing folks who live in a city and don’t need a car will help offset the cost of getting a car to poor folks in rural areas. Another benefit would be it would help the auto industry.
We keep hearing that EDUCATION is an absolute necessity. Tax every parent that does not send there kid to a 4 year college/University. Many kids that do not have a college degree end up being deadbeats(OWS) and are a drag on society. Tax the people who don’t want to go to college to help pay for the kids who do want to go to college. Hold on!, you say. Many folks who want to go to college can’t afford to go. I suggest a tax for a failure to prepare adequately for a childs education. Hold on!, you say again. I did save enough for ONE child to go to college. The problem is I have 3 children. Okay. We will then tax you for having more kids than you can afford.
You could go on and on.
They don’t plan to audit all neighborhoods, just the homes that are for sale, forcing the sellers to upgrade not only the windows, but the heating systems and appliances, as well. I believe it was part of the cap and trade bill that did not pass, but you can be sure that Obama (and Romney, too) would bring it back if they get an opening.
Even a good lawyer cannot defend the indefensible.
If we had a logical, fair and unbiased court, this Obama fiasco would be thrown out in less than an hour of deliberation.
BTW, wasn’t the law written in a way that if any part of it is struck down, all of it has to be struck down? I thought I had heard that at one time.
They will not know what to do and will be unable to deal with those who no longer have a legal job and will have to refund the salaries drawn as illegal employees.
The administration will cease to function because dealing with the dismantling will be all they can handle.
Problem is they pretty much already do that stuff. It’s just done in reverse as a tax deduction or a tax credit. Like the energy-efficient window deduction. Or the $8,000 tax credit for buying a house a couple years back. The government already does enough heinous things with our money, that this individual mandate doesn’t seem to me like the worst thing that’s done to the taxpayer. I’d rather receive a specific itemized bill from the government for services rendered, if it replaced the arbitrary income tax.
The constitutional remedy for stopping socialized health care is being overplayed in importance. The reason the mandate is so unpopular is because maybe half of the people who don’t like it wanted full socialized commie care with no obligation to pay anything. That war is going to start back up again if this is overturned. And it will have to be won with the public and at the ballot box.
Let’s not forget the government already has their hands in 50% of medical spending which causes most of the problems with the industry. Not to mention, the government will continue to mandate that health plans cover this or that and that hospitals don’t turn anyone away and everything else. I suppose to get a constitutional mandate they could make the hospital file a tax form for anyone who visits a doctor or hospital for the first time in any given year who doesn’t have insurance and mandate an annual fee that way. There are enough ways they can screw us with fees and taxes that they already seem legally able to do in countless different ways.
I thought we had a Tea Party that was going to help us fight this kind of stuff legislatively, but since they couldn’t even successfully nominate a conservative in a Republican primary, I don’t know how much more of a chance we have to turn the big government tide back.
I’m doing my “Happy Conservative Jew” dance.
This is just for show. They’ll go with their anointed one in the end.
And even then I will be skeptical.
Bottom line: The Main Stream Media doesn't report News...
They spread propaganda.
Kagan showed herself to be nothing but a stooge and a politician on the bench.
That Jeff Tobin (sp) must be a poor legal analyst.
The bottom line is still Anthony Kennedy. If he wants this to survive, it will. If he doesn’t, it won’t. Don’t get confident yet.
I’ll tell you why he had a bad day...because you can’t defend the indefensible in the end. Even the devil knows he will lose eventually.
That’s a point I hadn’t even thought of until you said it....Damn, that’d be funny.
“Train wreck, indeed! “
Until I hear the toilet flushing, I won’t believe that this will be delared unconstitutional by a panel of judges that wouldn’t touch eleigibility issues for fear of reprisal by the king.
I’ll believe it when I see it. I’ve seen too many “about faces” recently. Trust but verify.
Praying. If it’s upheld, it’s the end of the U.S.
Believe it after the ruling is issued. This reading tea leaves is just setting a predicate for Obama victory. These analysts cannot be trusted not to have an agenda behind their words.
I’m not a legal scholar, but it seems the relevant points were that ObamaCare attempts to create commerce to regulate. This would apply to people who choose to be uninsured.
The government attempted to say that they are in the insurance market whether or not they purchase insurance, and thus have a right to make them buy a policy.
There also seemed to be a lot of questions that drew the distinction of what was being regulated; health care or insurance. The government tried to basically say they are intertwined.
The only thing better than getting Obamacare declared unconstitutional... the knowledge that the Democrats threw away their majority... for nothing ! ROFl
At the time they were still under the influence of Begala and the bald cajun that the GOP was a dying party and there would be 40 years of Democratic Party rule.
Mark Levin is playing excerpts of the Supreme Court hearing. The solicitor general makes incoherent arguments.
"He [Verrilli] doesn't know what he's talking about."
The Obama laywer is speaking "mumbo jumbo" and a few seconds later Levin echoes the same. LoL. :-)
Justice John Roberts: Can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?
Justice Antonin Scalia: The federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; its supposed to be a government of limited powers. And thats what all this questioning has been about. What is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do?
Justice Anthony Kennedy: The government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act. And that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way.
The fate of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul was cast into deeper jeopardy Tuesday as the Supreme Court’s conservative justices sharply and repeatedly questioned its core requirement that virtually every American carry insurance. The court will now take up whether any remnant of the historic law can survive if that linchpin fails.
The justices’ questions in Tuesday’s hearing carried deeply serious implications but were sometimes flavored with fanciful suggestions. If the government can force people to buy health insurance, justices wanted to know, can it require people to buy burial insurance? Cellphones? Broccoli?
“Scouts blog has a different take on todays arguments. Kennedy explored both sides of the issue and seemed to find merit in some of the governments arguments”
If you read the transcript it would appear that way. But if you go back and listen to the argument, Kennedy was actually being caustic in his questioning at the point in the written transcript where he appeared to be sympathetic to the government’s position.
Let’s say in November 2012 conservatives win the White House, a super majority in the Senate, and a larger majority in the US House. This group of temporary politicians decide that EVERY CITIZEN MUST BUY A GUN. They pass (ram) this law through and the conservative President signs it into law.
New York, California, Massachusetts, and Maine file suits claiming the law is unconstitutional.
How would Kagan, Bryer, Sotomeyer, and what’s his name rule if brought up before SCOTUS?
CNN’s just trying to set up another “come back kid” story. I listened to the arguments today and made it 5-4 with Kennedy being the swing vote and he had his left turn signal on for much of the day. I think our “journalists” are just going for sensation, it was always going to be a close call and it still appears to be.
I listened to the whole thing, and concur with them. It’ll be a squeaker.
The very fact that communist medical care is being debated in the United States Supreme Court illustrates that this formerly free republican society has pushed passed its peak and is in terminal decline.
Obama, Biden, Reid, and Pelosi, along with Sebilius, should be immediately sequestered and held in prison without bail, on charges of violation of their oaths of office, while under impeachment and sentencing procedures for this fraud, a very costly fraud, perpetuated on the American people.
What is there to debate in court? The Obamacare tax ripoff is ipso facto unconstitutional in every aspect. Summary judgement should be issued and the whole idiocy ended except for the extended imprisonment or other punishment of the seditious and traitorous behavior of the nations highest officers.
Been done - see the rural electrification act, eg. Folks in cities were forced to pay the cost of running electric wire to farms.
I listened today. Roberts seemed weaker than Kennedy on this.
Events like today are for show in my opinion; something to make it seem like “the system works”. The GOP establishment has demonstrated more than once how this game is played.
And he probably stayed in a Holiday Express!!
Who knows, they might start telling you what you must buy for your lunch. Oh wait, they are already doing that. My bad.
Is it just me? I break out in cold sweats when I hear Breyer or Ginsberg speak. They think the government can do anything it wants and it’s okay. Last one I remember “Government could require us to buy phones.” What a nightmare!
“I cant believe theyre throwing in the towel this easily.”
Must be a “Trojan” Towel then.
I remember when belittling supreme court justices at State of the union events was in style ... my how time flies.
7. Removing Michelle Obamas fat azz from the white house.
Better a train wreck *before* it takes the economy over a cliff, I always say.
Better a train wreck *before* it takes the economy over a cliff, I always say.
The plan B for the Left, if there is severability, is to expand the void via Medicaid. Medicaid will reach well into the the middle class. The states will be key in this fight. We could have highly socialized medicine states that fail compared to more enlightened states with robust private health care markets. We are seeing a similar development with right to work states vs union states.
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.