Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't Count On Justice Kennedy (Based On His Comments Today)
Vanity Analysis Of SCOTUS Transcript | 3/27/12

Posted on 03/27/2012 3:32:49 PM PDT by Williams

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 03/27/2012 3:32:58 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Williams

I hope that somewhere in this argument is the stated the fact that because a person(s) does not have insurance that he/she/ is denied medical care.


2 posted on 03/27/2012 3:39:07 PM PDT by BilLies (Ass.Press ABCBSNBCNN, NYTimes, WaPOSt , etc., hate your Traditional American guts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I heard that Justice Roberts’ questions indicated he might not be voting against the mandate.


3 posted on 03/27/2012 3:39:39 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
How do you enforce this?? Take it out of my bank account.

So I get a job for the summer. The idea that the employee has to give me health insurance or get fined....guess what...He's not going to hire me.

Here's the clincher. I'm exempt when I'm working for myself because I make so little. If I work for someone, he pays??

4 posted on 03/27/2012 3:39:39 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

This case is about the Commerce Clause, not whether “health insurance” is “important” or not.

If Kennedy is actually interpreting the Constitution, rather than just a blesser of whatever Congress says is “good public policy”, he has no choice but to strike down the Mandate.

Kennedy has subsituted his personal preferences in the past. He better not this time.


5 posted on 03/27/2012 3:40:29 PM PDT by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I was about to eat dinner but this news made me lose my appetite.


6 posted on 03/27/2012 3:40:29 PM PDT by demkicker (My passion for freedom is stronger than that of Democrats whose obsession is to enslave me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

If Justice Roberts is a constitutionalist, he has to strike down the mandate.

If he is yet another government supremacist, he can vote to uphold it, in which case his name is legal mud in the history books.


7 posted on 03/27/2012 3:43:01 PM PDT by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madison10

I read the entire transcript. I don’t think any conservative vote is in question, except Kennedy’s.

The aggressive questioning against Obamacare didn’t come from Kennedy. He didn’t say that much and seemed to make two main points, each potentially going the opposite way.


8 posted on 03/27/2012 3:43:01 PM PDT by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madison10

Or that every person who gets healthcare - without having insurance- is going to stiff the provider.


9 posted on 03/27/2012 3:44:12 PM PDT by REDWOOD99 ("Everyone should pay taxes. Everyone should pay the same rate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I agree, you can’t trust Kennedy, he’s always seen as the “justice in the middle” and will try to find some way to cut the baby here.


10 posted on 03/27/2012 3:44:51 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

What gets me is USSC political hack judges are allowed to make straw man arguments instead of doing their effen job of making sure laws passed by congress are allowed by the Constitution.

Kennedy’s concern about some hypothetical young person increasing insurance costs is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL argument. Either the Constitution allows the Federal Government to force us to buy insurance or it does not. I does not matter one iota if then net result is good or bad in the eyes of government as if it were bad the only way to resolve the issue is to AMEND the Constitution not just bend it because it makes you feel better. Unfortunately most of those pieces of crap on the USSC are ignorant of this fact or don’t give a damn and will continue to use a judicial activist position to modify the Constitution without using the ONLY method which is Constitutional and that is the amendment process.


11 posted on 03/27/2012 3:47:24 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
He's probably just “appearing” to seriously consider both sides.
12 posted on 03/27/2012 3:48:27 PM PDT by ryan71 (Dear spell check - No, I will not capitalize the "m" in moslem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

I listened to most of the arguments on cspan radio, on XM. I came away with a different feeling, and wanted to loudly applaud in my car a few times. I feel cautiously optimistic personally.


13 posted on 03/27/2012 3:49:05 PM PDT by alamogal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I listen to Court arguments all the time. Questioning does not always indicate the way they vote.

Supreme Court Justices, at least the good ones, have a habit of picking apart both sides. They’re not always asking questions to make a point — as hack Congressmen do — they’re asking to hear the arguments.

SnakeDoc


14 posted on 03/27/2012 3:49:39 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I think that the justices totally know how they are voting, and they’re putting on a show, to show how “seriously they considered it from all sides” before shoving it down our throats.


15 posted on 03/27/2012 3:51:38 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
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.

I was immediately struck by this statement and had to wonder if Justice Alito is a fan of Mark Steyn. Steyn has been saying this exact thing since they first threw this monstrous bill on the table.

16 posted on 03/27/2012 3:52:43 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alamogal
So Do I. But this is FR, the hangout of the nattering nabobs of negativism. :)
17 posted on 03/27/2012 3:52:50 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I sure hope I am wrong, but my guess is the court will uphold the individual mandate and Obamacare. Asking 4 conservatives and as squish to overrule something this big that has passed through both the Legislative and Executive branches is going to be tough. They may all know it is a bad, bad idea - but I suspect that Kennedy and perhaps Roberts will not want the courts to trump the elected branches of government. They may also believe that the alternative to the individual mandate is pure single payer socialized medicine.


18 posted on 03/27/2012 3:53:55 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Until Kate Smith sings..all we can do is pray.


19 posted on 03/27/2012 3:54:30 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

LOL. What the hell qualifies you as an analyst of SCOTUS? Opinions are like a##holes, everyone has one.


20 posted on 03/27/2012 3:54:55 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

“the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.”

So what? Behold the travesty of legal thinking. Here’s a guy obviously very skeptical of the government’s arguments generally, but then he goes and gets himself all tangled up in the “matters of degree” that make up most of life’s questions. Firstly, health insurance is absolutely not unique in the effect of people not buying. That’s called demand, and there’s a law for it—along with supply—that holds true for every market.

As for the youth in particular having special impact on the insurance industry via their non-purchase, give me a break. Young people also habitually fail to buy Centrum Silver, Depends, and Worthers Originals. Does that make it a concern of the federal government? Only because not enough agitprop agents have made a cause of it yet.

Nevermind all that, however. Let me grant that healthcare is special. Let me grant that people not buying insurance has no analogue anywhere in the U.S. economy. Again I ask: so what? What should a SCOTUS justice care? What does any of this have to do with the Constitution? The feds have the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce; I do not recall a clause along the lines of: “Congress shall regulate the non-purchase of commodities for industries wherein young people come close to affecting prices.”

Seriously, where does this stuff come from?


21 posted on 03/27/2012 3:55:23 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I think that the justices totally know how they are voting, and they’re putting on a show, to show how “seriously they considered it from all sides” before shoving it down our throats.


22 posted on 03/27/2012 3:55:43 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Opinions are like a##holes, everyone has one.

Hence the term anal-yst.

23 posted on 03/27/2012 3:56:14 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Sofa King Mitt Odd Did Obamneycare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“So Do I. But this is FR, the hangout of the nattering nabobs of negativism. :)”

Well, I hope a few of them were listening to the audio of the arguments. There are things you can’t tell from a transcript like tone of voice. To me, Justice Kennedy seemed a bit impatient toward the solicitor general, and interrupted his arguments more than once. To me, it made the Government’s arguments seem weak. As I said before, I’m cautiously optimistic.


24 posted on 03/27/2012 3:59:43 PM PDT by alamogal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Williams

We can liken the government’s notion of the young and their responsibility to overpay for health care in order to make it cheaper for older folks, to life insurance. Why is it not similarly a good idea to have the young be forced to buy unneeded life policies to make life policies cheaper for those closer to their end? After all, regarding life insurance, most don’t buy it until they perceive a benefit in having such an expense.


25 posted on 03/27/2012 4:00:52 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

We all know this bill is not Constitutional. If they say it is, then the country is over.

The US is no longer a free nation.


26 posted on 03/27/2012 4:02:27 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd

i agree. the men in black robes will grant more power to the federal government and the commoners must accept their divine ruling.


27 posted on 03/27/2012 4:04:24 PM PDT by patriot5186
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

If what you say is true... neither kennedy or roberts deserves to sit on that bench... I saw the Robert’s hearing... I listened to his every word... he will also be a liar if you are correct. You know what scares me? I think that you may very well be correct.

LLS


28 posted on 03/27/2012 4:05:40 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer; Williams

What worries me is that he’s looking at it as about “some hypothetical young person increasing insurance costs “
when the argument is about “some hypothetical young person being forced to contribute to reduce other’s insurance costs “.

The government wants to require them to pay because they are such profitable insurance risks and that profit is going to be used to reduce medicare and medicaid costs.

The media has hid the fact that Obamacare is a system to force the young to contribute more towards older people’s healthcare and I hoped and expected that to be prominent in this hearing.

Kennedy is the lone liberal on the court, I can’t ever figure him out.
But any sign his heart is ‘bleeding’ is a bad sign.


29 posted on 03/27/2012 4:06:03 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“LOL. What the hell qualifies you as an analyst of SCOTUS? Opinions are like a##holes, everyone has one.”

That would be 25 years of legal experience including appellate argument.

However, no one said you have to accept my opinion, I merely showed you Kennedy’s two strongest comments and he said very little else.

The folks here who listened to the arguments and were cheering understandably were cheering Scalia, Roberts, Alito and also Kennedy’s first statement above.

Thomas doesn’t say anything but he’s fine.

I don’t believe Souter spoke but the libs all fought for Obamacare.

Kennedy only made two big statements, more comments than questions. In the second one above he expressed concern that the uninsured young person is close to participating in the commerce of health care/ health insurance, in a way that is unique to the medical industry.

Kennedy used an analysis related to the law of torts in both comments, which has zero to do with this case except in a very conceptual way. So his vote will come down to whether he decides the uninsured really “proximately” participate in the industry in a unique way which pernits Congress to regulate their behavior.

I have no idea which way Kennedy will vote.

As to opinions and a**h***s, if you keep your head out of one, you may be able to evaluate the other.


30 posted on 03/27/2012 4:10:58 PM PDT by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing

One man can now influence the course of Amrica’s future.

Is Kennedy now our KING?


31 posted on 03/27/2012 4:21:34 PM PDT by elcid1970 ("Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Williams
After all is said and done, it is extremely critical to defeat Obama in 2012 and deny him opportunity for more appointments like Kagan, Sotomayor & Ginsburg Otherwise we are screwed for 30+ years.
32 posted on 03/27/2012 4:25:12 PM PDT by entropy12 (Every tax payer now owes $150,000 towards the national debt. We are worse than broke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

I think you’re right. Kennedy could go, but I think Scalia would jump ship before Roberts.


33 posted on 03/27/2012 4:26:13 PM PDT by andyk (Go Juan Pablo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
...defeat Obama in 2012 and deny him opportunity for more appointments like Kagan, Sotomayor & Ginsburg Otherwise we are screwed for 30+ years.

Frankly, at this point I hope they uphold it.

Consider: it's struck down and the libs go crazy. It gives 'bam the one single thing he lacks this go round: an issue.

If they uphold the law, it will energize the Republicans and sway the fence sitters our way.

I can't help but wonder if this wasn't a set up all along; pass a bill knowing it would be struck down in order to exploit it in the next election.

I wish this wasn't possible, but I'm seeing you can never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate.

34 posted on 03/27/2012 4:36:28 PM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tsomer

Liberals can hardly exploit Obamacare since polls are clearly showing it is not popular. Surprisingly Romneycare polls in Massachusetts show it is popular. That explains why voters have not rejected Romneycare by defeating politicians who are for it.


35 posted on 03/27/2012 4:46:31 PM PDT by entropy12 (Every tax payer now owes $150,000 towards the national debt. We are worse than broke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I doubt Souter spoke either since he retired almost three years ago. ;)

Just giving you a hard time. Thanks for your opinion and insight.


36 posted on 03/27/2012 4:47:43 PM PDT by gopno1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd
I think that the justices totally know how they are voting, and they’re putting on a show, to show how “seriously they considered it from all sides” before shoving it down our throats.

Exactly. Justice Kennedy knows he is the swing vote and it has gone to head and ego. So his critical line of questioning today is designed to give him cover when he screws the American people and our Constitution. Just giving you his possible thinking...anything can happen. I put nothing past these black robed bi##hes. I respect maybe three of them

37 posted on 03/27/2012 4:54:29 PM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
In 25 years on the bench Justice Kennedy has always ruled as a Federalist.

Liberals are in a panic,

38 posted on 03/27/2012 5:13:45 PM PDT by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: gopno1

Good one, thank you. You’re right all 4 liberal justices spoke.


39 posted on 03/27/2012 5:14:03 PM PDT by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Everyone knows the decision will come down to Kennedy. Simple as that. And most seasoned analysts of SCOTUS say that it is virturally impossible to predict how he will vote based on the questions asked. No one is counting on Kennedy, just hoping he does the right thing.

I am always suspect of people who engage in hubris when they decide to post a vainity. Knock yourself out.

40 posted on 03/27/2012 5:16:04 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kabar

You can be suspect, I posted this because I read the transcripts and realized Kennedy ended up making a statement that wasn’t helpful. I pointed this out because everyone is cheering the conventional wisdom that Obamacare went down in flames today. Maybe it did.


41 posted on 03/27/2012 5:23:24 PM PDT by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Williams

You don’t have to have insurance...you could pay cash.

How can they insist that you pay for something you may not need. Doesn’t matter if the vast majority uses insurance, you are making everyone pay whether they need it or not.


42 posted on 03/27/2012 5:27:36 PM PDT by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I listened to the debate and read the transcripts. It all comes down to Kennedy and we don’t know how he will vote. Your vainity contributes nothing to that dialogue. Just another uninformed opinion.


43 posted on 03/27/2012 5:38:52 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tsomer
"Frankly, at this point I hope they uphold it."

I like your twisted logic.

44 posted on 03/27/2012 5:42:15 PM PDT by shove_it (just undo it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Here is a post of every question that Kennedy asked this morning.

- Kennedy's questions -

My take is that Kennedy realizes that this act "fundamentally changes the relationship between the Federal Government and the individual." And that he thinks that it is possible, but that such a change has to be heavily justified.

The question is whether or not Kennedy thinks that ACA reaches that level of justification.
45 posted on 03/27/2012 5:50:19 PM PDT by rbbeachkid (Get out of its way and small business can fix the economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Thanks for your vanity post that other freepers are way too hard on. I am not a lawyer and agree with your take


46 posted on 03/27/2012 6:07:34 PM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd; All

Anyone notice how all discussion of recusal (which was such a hot topic for awhile) by either Kagan or Thomas just went poof and disappeared?

(BTW, Kagan definitely should’ve recused herself - Thomas, not so much - imo.)


47 posted on 03/27/2012 6:08:36 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd
"I think that the justices totally know how they are voting, and they’re putting on a show, to show how “seriously they considered it from all sides” before shoving it down our throats."I've mentioned before that strangely Scalia was at the last Obama Hollywood-style party at the White Hut, and I believe it was for a reason.

Likewise, like you, I'm afraid the fix is in, and they're already spent 100's of millions to put the beaurocracy in place to implement Socialized Medicine, and, like the Usurper being in Office for 3 years now and no one will challenge the Fraud and Ineligibility issues, they would not dare to un-do what is already in place, as evidenced by all the Republicans backing off Repeal of Obamacare. It's a done deal, I'm afraid.

48 posted on 03/27/2012 6:18:25 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kabar

You’re not being very nice. I reprinted some Kennedy specific comments so people would be aware. I’m really sorry that bothers you.


49 posted on 03/27/2012 6:26:35 PM PDT by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Williams

JUSTICE KENNEDY: “And the government tells us that’s because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it’ll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets — stipulate two markets — the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.

Kennedy is desparately searching for some ‘limiting principle’ to carve out health care as a unique situation that would not give the government broad mandate powers in other areas, but of course, that cannot work. The government would use the mandate as a precedent and claim that it must mandate an action in another industry on the grounds that the other industry is unique also.

So if wealthy people buy expensive homes, the government could mandate rich people not be allowed to buy expensive homes because more resources will be spent on expensive homes which reduces the production of cheaper homes. The reduction of the availability of cheaper homes in the market increases the price for poorer people that can only aford cheaper, smaller homes. Solution, mandate a limit on spending on a home.


50 posted on 03/27/2012 6:28:38 PM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est; zero sera dans l'enfer bientot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson