Posted on 03/27/2012 1:13:49 PM PDT by Kaslin
You make an excellent point. While I don’t know that that is necessarily true, I don’t think it is that far fetched.
We attorneys know all too well that in complicated issues you ALWAYS give the Court something it can throw away because you want to win on the issue that means the most to you. Any attorney can tell you that they do that all the time.
As I type this, I wonder if you might not be on to something.
It is too and no one has ever challenged it.Welfare and all of the other social programs IMHO are too.The constitution does not allow the federal government the power it has taken over the years.That power is supposed to be left to the states and the people.
At times it seems the wheels of justice grind slowly, and your advise is the best advise, to sit and wait.... and don’t get the judge mad at you.
Fascinating. Really appreciate the link. While I have followed the issue (Obamacare), I gladly concede that this aspect has never occurred to me. However, since you (and some other) may have pointed it out, I find it not only plausible but “could very well be”. Like I said in another post, we attorneys ALWAYS (in complex issues) give the Judge/Court something to throw away. We always have an issue (maybe two) we don’t mind losing just so we can keep our core issue.
For you that have considered this as a possibility. Good call. I think the real smoking gun here is the Obama Admin backing off the “this is a tax” issue to let the Court pitch it.
In short .... hmmmmmm.
“...but I’ll vote for the Republican candidate in November regardless - because the alternative is our nation’s destruction.”
I hope that everyone reads your paragraph very carefully. This is a high-stakes game. Yesterday’s “open mike” slip-up is just a tiny, tiny peek behind the curtain.
Yes, I remember that was the talk of the town back then. The bigger problem was that the officer who gave the ticket did not allow a full explanation of the situation at the scene.
I hope its right that its not going well for ObamaCare.
We will know more in June when they release their decision.
June right?
It isn’t going well when the Court breaks out in laughter
at the Government’s (Obama’s lawyer’s) argument.
If, though, the questions they ask cannot be answered or are answered very poorly, surely that means something.
“Why not broccoli?”
It's good for you. It's business. Go buy enough for B a day. What's different about that?
Well, yer honor, broccoli is green and an insurance policy is in the red....what...do I look like a grocer?
Judge Judy on TV right now-just called the Plaintiff she had terrible taste in men, she needed to get a life and then yelled at her and called her a nutjob.
Then Judge Judy ruled in her favor...
ya never know...
Mrs CT Hillbilly (in bed with a cold and forced to watch TV alone with my germs...sigh...)
Anyone who thought she would recuse herself is fooling themselves. She is a leftists and they are above conflicts of interest. Even if she went to dinner with Sebellius last night and recieved her orders, she still wouldn’t see that as a conflict of interest.
forcing people to engage in commerce is not regulating it
Anyone else find it amusing that the anti-capitalist will be upset if they can’t force all Americans (exclding their voting block) to buy healthcare.
Control freak commie progs!
I’m not depending upon Romney to appoint conservatives - but at least we might get a moderate or 2 instead of outright radicals like Kagan and Sotomayor. Anyhow, there are other issues besides the courts, like foreign policy. On that score I’m certain that Romney will be a lot better than this appeasing, bowing, America-hater. Still, Romney’s not my first choice (2nd to last, only ahead of the irrelevant Ron Paul). Actually, he’ll also be my 2nd to last choice in the General Election.
Obama delenda est.
This is a GREAT exchange ...
*****
MR. CARVIN: No, no, no. I was — they create this strawman that says: Look, the only alternative to doing it the way we’ve done it, if we condition access to health care on buying health insurance, the only way you can enforce that is making sick people not get care. I’m saying no, no.
There’s a perfectly legitimate way they could enforce their alternative, i.e., requiring you to buy health insurance when you access health care, which is the same penalty structure that’s in the Act.
There is no moral dilemma between having people have insurance and denying them emergency service. Congress has made a perfectly legitimate value judgment that they want to make sure that people get emergency care. Since the founding, whenever Congress has imposed that public responsibility on private actors, it has subsidized it from the Federal Treasury. It has not conscripted a subset of the citizenry and made them subsidize the actors who are being hurt, which is what they’re doing here.
They’re making young, healthy people subsidize insurance premiums for the cost that the nondiscrimination provisions have put on insurance premiums and insurance companies.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So the -
MR. CARVIN: And that is the fundamental problem here.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So the — I — I want to understand the choices you’re saying Congress has. Congress can tax everybody and set up a public health care system.
MR. CARVIN: Yes.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That would be okay?
MR. CARVIN: Yes. Tax power is -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Okay.
MR. CARVIN: I would accept that.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Congress can — are you taking the same position as your colleague, Congress can’t say we’re going to set up a public health system, but you can get a tax credit if you have private health insurance because you won’t access the public system. Are you taking the same position as your colleague?
MR. CARVIN: There may have been some confusion in your prior colloquy. I fully agree with my brother Clement that a direct tax would be unconstitutional. I don’t think he means to suggest, nor do I, that a tax credit that incentivizes you to buy insurance creates a problem. Congress incentivizes all kinds of activities. If they gave us a tax credit for buying insurance, then it would be our choice whether or not that makes economic sense, even though -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So how is this different than this Act, which says if a taxpayer fails to meet the requirement of having minimum coverage, then they are responsible for paying the shared responsibility payment?
MR. CARVIN: The difference is that the taxpayer is not given a choice ...
Yes; if you generally fit the catagory of the FSA (Free $hit Army), then you'll be rewarded. If not, too bad for you.
Boring folks like me will be getting ripped off big time. This pandoras box will bring forth a monster, with even uglier monsters in its’ wake.
Boring folks like you (and me, and most conservatives) have been, are, and will continue to be ripped off - big time...and it'll get worse with time, until enough of us go Galt. The monster you speak of is a collapsing system, brought about by penalizing hard work, honesty and thrift. It happened to Rome, it'll happen to us. It'll just happen faster if this abomination is allowed to stand and/or if Obama gets a 2nd term.
Obama delenda est.
Thanks for your insight and participation at Free Republic.
Thanks!! I have dome to really enjoy it here. =) Really like the people.
A very telling fact that bodes ill here is Kagen did not recuse. That makes one think it’s dog and pony show from the beginning.
We have had decades of the Supremes ignoring major parts of the Constitution and forcing the term “the People” into the Commerce clause. When did we pass an Amendment authorizing a 2nd Prohibition?
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.