Live Blog: Obama Health Law at the Supreme Court, Day 3

Wall Street Journal ^ | March 28, 2012 | Wall Street Journal Court Reporters

[katieanna]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday is entering the last of its three days of arguments over the Obama health-care law, with justices set to weigh what happens to the rest of the overhaul if the court strikes down the requirement that individuals carry health insurance. We have reporters at the court, who are sending in updates on the action. The morning session started at 10 a.m. ET, and the afternoon session starts at 1 p.m.

[chessplayer]

I think this is a fascinating argument. 2700 page IS a lot, and these guys should stand firm on the position that it’s too much to reasonably comprehend, even for experienced constitutional lawyers.

---

How can he render judgement on something he hasn’t and won’t read? Libs are having a field day with his remarks. Remember how we condemned Congress for passing something they never read?

[TexasNative2000]

So is your chaos theory also at play in the Administration wanting this to be heard so quickly? Get a ruling that generates chaos and uncertainty just months before the election in November?

[hoosiermama]

Yelp....Also expect chaos after Romney gets nomination. Hope the GOPee have a plan “B” cause am betting Axelrod has a plan to take him down.

Read first two chapters of “CAN MITT ROMNEY SERVE TWO MASTERS?” on Amazon.

[KTM rider]

the supreme court is so insane I would expect to see a brief like this:

" Because the interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate commerce between states

and Obamacare spreads its joy between all the states

therefore the federal government has the power to impose a mandate that citizens purchase such joy because the federal government must regulate such joy and cannot do so without creating such joy as Obamacare spreads between states ..... in the case of the interstate highway system, a federal fuel tax was imposed to implement it, ALL citizens benefit from the interstate hiway system

BUT, Obamacare only benefits the INDIVIDUAL and not all citizens,

therefore;, the mandate to purchase Obamacare is the right of the federal government to impose on the individual, a requirement to purchase healthcare is the fundamental duty of the federal government in order to promote the general welfare of the public .....

we are the supreme court ,

we dont have to make sense or exercise accountability because we are appointed for life and we dont care what anyone thinks as long as we make history in a big way is all that matters to us

so be it, so it will be "

[Shethink13]

we dont have to make sense or exercise accountability because we are appointed for life and we dont care what anyone thinks as long as we make history in a big way is all that matters to us

Besides, we have our own health care and are exempted from Obamacare.....

[unkus]

Over 3 months. Heck of a lot of time for arm twisting and threats. I have no confidence whatsoever this will be struck down.

---

I agree.

I believe the congress, intelligence community and defense dept. have all been told they can make noises and go through the motions but not to cross the line because their families have been threatened.

[KTM rider]

I knew a back office case management nurse, she was constantly stressed out emotionally because she had to decide who lives and who dies based on a complex process of financial triage,

is it constitutional for the federal government to assume the role of case management ? A political entity should not have the power to decide who lives and dies, they cannot be trusted to be impartial and compassionate , but rather expected to abuse such power for political expediency

[leakinInTheBlueSea]

Is that what he is really saying? or is he simply pointing out that it is unrealistic for the SC to rule on the constitutionality of every aspect of the law given its complexity. I think he’s laying out the case that they should either strike down only the IM and await more cases challenging other parts, or strike it down in its entirety. Logically, the statement he made that even forming SC opinion on each and every aspect of the law connected to the IM is unrealistic leads to the conclusion that if any part is found unconstitutional, the entire law is void. I obviously hope that is the way it goes, as the intentional girth and complexity of legislation lately is sickening.

[unkus]

I knew a back office case management nurse, she was constantly stressed out emotionally because she had to decide who lives and who dies based on a complex process of financial triage,

---

No problem under Obamacare. They just fill those slots with SEIU, ACORN and others of that ilk and target white conservatives. They would have no qualms at all.

[patriciaruth]

you have no confidence that Obamacare will be struck down.

But what if it is?

Our economy could get well in a big hurry. Entrepreneurs and dreamers could get optimistic again and start pulling us out of the deep hole we’ve been sinking in.

I’m gonna start praying for SOTUS. Please, guys, save us. Save us so much misery. Save our economy. Save our dreamers. Please, Heavenly Father, enlighten and lead them.

[Absolutely Nobama]

“Hearing liberals argue for judicial restraint is like hearing communists argue for free enterprise.”

LOL!

+1 !!

[itssme]

HAS ANYONE ELSE READ THIS LINK??? READ IT NOW!

No one is going to implant a RFID chip in my body....this bastard evil in the White House is in for the fight of his life...these evil, evil nazi bastards, each and every one who had a hand in writing this damned “healthcare bill” plan on turning each and every one of us into micro-chipped, controlled bodies, the chip giving these bastards access to our banking accounts, our medical records...they will deduct the charges for whatever medical service we are receiving, at the time we are receiving this service, from our bank account. We will initially receive a Health Card, and then will be micro-chipped, all to be done by a specific date.

READ THIS LINK and then decide how you will join forces with like minded people to stop this diabolical evil from achieving their goal.

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun data/government/homeland security patriot act fema/news.php?q=1331216728

[jackv]

Thanks itssme! Over my dead body!!

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Is that what he is really saying? or is he simply pointing out that it is unrealistic for the SC to rule on the constitutionality of every aspect of the law given its complexity

He's saying neither. The Court doesn't rule on constitutionality of issues not presented to it, and a challenge to the constitutionality of the rest of the Act isn't before the Court.legislative function of figuring out whether a bill missing a key component can continue to function. Not whether it remains constitutional, but whether it can function as Congress intended.

In other words, he's saying that to avoid acting as a legislature, they need to strike the whole thing down and let Congress draft whatever replacement they choose to draft, from scratch.