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

Skip to comments.

Live Blog: Obama Health Law at the Supreme Court, Day 3
Wall Street Journal ^ | March 28, 2012 | Wall Street Journal Court Reporters

Posted on 03/28/2012 8:36:39 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deathcarebyromney; livescotusocareday3; obamacare; romneycare; romneycare4all; romneycare4u; scotus; scotusobamacare; scotusocareday3
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-134 last
To: hoosiermama

I sure hope your dad is right! This whole thing is so bad I can barely believe this is the USA. The way is was written - or should I say by whom, the way it was passed with all the dirty deals, and the doubling of cost already.

It could barely be worse!


101 posted on 03/28/2012 1:20:33 PM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; katieanna
The act of determining which part to keep is not a judicial responsibility, it is legislative and the SCOTUS will not touch it. Don't want to be the third legislative branch. They will/can determine only what lies within the contract/constitution.

If they rule against the mandate (which IMO they will) then they can only rule how the mandates effect the entire bill or the consequences of the ruling. Merely stating they are aware of the consequences may be all that can be stated. Simply that with mandates unconstitutional the bill is an empty shell and needs reworking from scratch would suffice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Then why does your father think 6-3 against the entire bill? Would they then not say, in effect, "The act of determining which part to keep is not a judicial responsibility, it is legislative"... and we therefore strike down the mandate as unconstitutional and send the "crippled" bill back to you for you to deal with what remains. Isn't "empty shell" a legislative opinion, rather than a constitutional one? What would be their constitutional grounds for killing the whole bill? Breyer suggesting that his options include appointing a special master or going back to the district courts???

102 posted on 03/28/2012 1:48:49 PM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right
They (especially Roberts) don't want to be seen as an activist bench.

OTOH, the Court WILL NOT allow Congress to claim a power NOT specified in the Constitution.

Requiring a person to enter into a compulsory contract has been invalid for centuries - and the Founding Fathers knew this.

Forcing someone to enter the marketplace so that Congress can regulate them under the Interstate Commerce Clause is a non sequitor. Fining someone for failure to do so is ALSO invalid.

IF the Court declares the mandate [and the rest of the law] unconstitutional, it is NOT activism - it is the duty of the Court. For as Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury v. Madison [an opinion that DEMs CLAIM they revere]:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is ..."

103 posted on 03/28/2012 1:52:02 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bootless
Because, Justice Sotomayor, it's the job of SCOTUS to determine Constitutionality of laws.

Sotomayor MUST have skipped the day in CONSTITUTION 101 in law school when they discussed Marbury v. Madison. And she MIGHT NOT know that the great Justice John Marshall stated:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is ..."

For that matter - based on her statement, she might not know WHO Justice John Marshall is ...

104 posted on 03/28/2012 2:02:47 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

That’s why the opinions they write will be more important than the vote they take.

Their rational for voting it down completely or just passing an empty shell back to congress is more important than what how they vote.

One thing for sure, they do not want to make a habit out of this practice. This time 2,700 pages next time 5,000 filled with materials that no one knows. It’s an Alinsky mind game of using the system to destroy the system and I do wish someone could point that out to them so they can stop the mind games in their tracks.


105 posted on 03/28/2012 2:05:53 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Stand with God and Sarah, the Gipper and Newt will be standing next to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Without the mandates. US Insurance companies cannot finance the rest of Obama care without MASSIVE premium increases.

That will result in MILLIONS losing healthcare insurance, even more than are losing it now due to Obamacare.

Ready-made Democrat ‘Crisis”


They win this, they win. They lose this, they win.


106 posted on 03/28/2012 3:31:48 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

Statements made today mean little since the ruling will be sometime in June. That gives Obama and his cronies a long time to make phone calls and sway his insiders.


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


107 posted on 03/28/2012 4:41:13 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: katieanna

I disagree. First, the ruling does not have to come in June. It is merely presumed it will as that is the end of the term. They can rule next month if they are ready. 2) If by cronies you mean Soto and Kagan, look, they are having a hard time defending the Statute because it is BAD law. Bad law, and in this case, Sloppy law, is terribly hard to defend. The president will be gone in less than a year (at most 5 years) whereas these Justices’ rulings and reputations are part of history.


Doesn’t matter that they are having a hard time defending it. They will vote to uphold it anyway, and twist themselves into knots arguing how it is Constitutional. The lib justices are in lockstep. And it doesn’t matter to them if obama is gone, either, because they want to re-make the country. These people are fanatics. Their personal image means nothing to them. All that matters to them is the end goal.


108 posted on 03/28/2012 4:59:56 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
That’s why the opinions they write will be more important than the vote they take.

Their rational for voting it down completely or just passing an empty shell back to congress is more important than what how they vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Surprised by your answer, HM. Need educated on this. Is not the vote the whole ball of wax? If the empty shell is passed back to Congress, is it not then out of SCOTUS hands, no matter what majority and minority decisions are?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It’s an Alinsky mind game of using the system to destroy the system and I do wish someone could point that out to them so they can stop the mind games in their tracks.

The same was my greatest source of frustration in listening to these oral arguments. Justices asking what are the "limits" if Fed can impose ObamaCare? Then what next? Where are the limits?

What next? ALL they need is ObamaCare to take down America.

Other dogs not barking:

1) There are not 40 mil citizens w/o Healthcare. Not true. That was mentioned again and again. Then said, well, the percentages don't matter, but that number DID matter to them, and it is false.

2) Another "fact" that was repeated over and over again was related to the subject of cost-shifting. Someone not having insurance is costing me more. And the amount that was bandied about, over and over again, was $1000. It is costing me $1000 per year to subsidize those w/o health insurance.

NOT TRUE: The real cost is more like $80-$200:

Shifting Arguments

Referenced article:

ObamaCare and the Truth About 'Cost Shifting' {March 11, 2011]

3) "Soft" euthanasia -- The number of people under ObamaCare who will be exempted from both "contribution" and penalty costs can no more support Obamacare by the contributions of the low-actuarial-risk young citizens than can requiring the 1 %ers to hand over all of their cash improve the economy.

ObamaCare doesn't even require an increasing number of denied medical procedures and life-saving meds, though that is guaranteed to happen. It only requires an army of SEIU home healthcare workers knocking at the doors of the elderly, the disabled, and the mentally infirm, telling them that their selfish desire to live longer is denying quality care to others---to their children and grandchildren---a monologue that I imagine will be scripted much like debt-collectors' monologue, and with similar increasing psychological pressure.

We have the means to improve the healthcare system that exists---if only that had been the original objective.

109 posted on 03/28/2012 5:45:10 PM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs

I’m amazed at how stupid the liberals are for not having a severability clause. Doh!


110 posted on 03/28/2012 6:01:55 PM PDT by rdl6989 (January 20, 2013 The end of an error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
The entire purpose of this action/bill is to create chaos...Lack of severability clause was done of purpose. The Rats know it's unconstitutional. It's a crisis in the making and as someone pointed out earlier it's “hell if you do and hell if you don't” mind games.

The reason that I think the opinions will be more important than the vote is whether the high court calls them on their game playing. 2,700 pages of legal manipulations, attempts to rewrite commerce laws, challenging the constitution, not to mention all the non-case issues that the SCOTUS are aware of just by living in DC.

The congress and legal eagles for BO administration appeared inept. Will the opinion point that out? (Did you read about the commercial using their attorney....think it higher up on thread)

Putting all the legal decision and issues aside, just dealing with the crap this bill represents, with the writing skills on this court, should make for some interesting reading.

AS Thomas once said it's time for them to evade the bull-crap they call Obamacare. There is a second meaning of the word, although dissect might be more appropriate. Regardless hope Nancy, and BO are left with nothing but piles (PI)

111 posted on 03/28/2012 6:34:46 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Stand with God and Sarah, the Gipper and Newt will be standing next to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: All
Hidden Secret in Obamacare. Over My Dead Body
112 posted on 03/28/2012 6:43:39 PM PDT by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: jackv

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/homeland_security_patriot_act_fema/news.php?q=1331216728


113 posted on 03/28/2012 6:46:58 PM PDT by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: katieanna

Quoting: Justice Scalia says it’s “totally unrealistic” to expect the Supreme Court to go through 2,700 pages of the health-care law and figure out which provisions should remain in place and which must be thrown out because they’re interconnected with the insurance mandate.”

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. (well most of them are)

So as katieanna neatly put it, if we had to ‘pass it to find out what’s in it’ — we should strike it down by the same standard. If nothing else on the presumption that there are bound to be unconstitutional sections *somewhere* in that morass of paperwork.

It’s a Frankenstein-ian monstronsity that needs to be killed. Not “lop off an arm” here and “trim this bit of leg” there. Die. It will be worse if half-alive. That will simply open the floodgates for more layers of legislation to ‘repair’ what was cut out.

Bury it, and pour salt on the ground so nothing ever grows there again.


114 posted on 03/28/2012 7:36:28 PM PDT by Rickster GloucesterVA (This is where I come to get my America back...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rickster GloucesterVA; katieanna
So as katieanna neatly put it, if we had to ‘pass it to find out what’s in it’ — we should strike it down by the same standard.

Nice.

115 posted on 03/28/2012 7:48:30 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
He pointed out a couple of things that Soto did at the time of her confirmation. He doesn’t think she’ll be as liberal as BO wishes she were.

Interesting. What things did she do?

116 posted on 03/28/2012 7:52:02 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

“Lack of severability clause was done of purpose. “

—— as was the push by Obama et al to get it heard by SCOTUS so soon. They could have easily have stalled it til close to or after the election, I would think. Mark Levin said they pushed for sooner rather than later.

“The reason that I think the opinions will be more important than the vote is whether the high court calls them on their game playing. 2,700 pages of legal manipulations....should make for some interesting reading.”

ah! Well, that would be a quickening moment for the nation.

“Did you read about the commercial using their attorney....”

Verrilli??? Checked, but do not see it.

“The congress and legal eagles for BO administration appeared inept.”

White House has no contingency plans if health law is tossed (the rookie Hussein is clueless)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2865183/posts

Why push to get the case heard sooner than later? Hard to believe our national nightmare (at least one of them) could be over soon.


117 posted on 03/28/2012 8:16:43 PM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

Read my post on that thread. The no consigency plan is another attempt to create maximum chaos.

Pray to God that the GOP has a plan and that the court gives them time to get it in place.

Verilli was the name mentioned in the ad. To be truthful got interupted and didn’t follow through. Could it have been on one of Rush’s threads. Will keep my eye out for it.


118 posted on 03/28/2012 8:28:22 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Stand with God and Sarah, the Gipper and Newt will be standing next to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
If a woman has a right to choose death for her unwanted child

then certainly the federal government has a right to choose Obamacare for its unwanted sick old white people sucking up social security [/sarcasm]

119 posted on 03/28/2012 8:29:51 PM PDT by KTM rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989
~~~I’m amazed at how stupid the liberals are for not having a severability clause. Doh!~~~

Lack of severability was intentional. Were it severable, the law would be more susceptible to Judicial temperance. The Democrats were betting on a "too big to fail" strategy which may turn out to be a miscalculation.

120 posted on 03/28/2012 8:32:01 PM PDT by TexasNative2000 (Jimmy Carter's incompetence + Richard Nixon's paranoia = Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Rickster GloucesterVA

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?


121 posted on 03/28/2012 8:37:09 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

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?


122 posted on 03/28/2012 8:43:16 PM PDT by TexasNative2000 (Jimmy Carter's incompetence + Richard Nixon's paranoia = Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TexasNative2000

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.


123 posted on 03/28/2012 8:52:12 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Stand with God and Sarah, the Gipper and Newt will be standing next to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
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 "

124 posted on 03/28/2012 9:45:04 PM PDT by KTM rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
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.....

125 posted on 03/28/2012 9:48:36 PM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

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.


126 posted on 03/28/2012 10:21:14 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: 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,

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

127 posted on 03/28/2012 11:04:07 PM PDT by KTM rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

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.


128 posted on 03/28/2012 11:45:13 PM PDT by leakinInTheBlueSea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: 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,


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.


129 posted on 03/29/2012 7:53:48 AM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

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.


130 posted on 03/29/2012 3:53:39 PM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1993905/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: AU72

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

LOL!

+1 !!


131 posted on 03/29/2012 6:20:11 PM PDT by Absolutely Nobama (I can't think of a good tagline......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jackv
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

132 posted on 03/29/2012 10:52:31 PM PDT by itssme (re)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: itssme

Thanks itssme! Over my dead body!!


133 posted on 03/30/2012 7:12:36 AM PDT by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: 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

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.

134 posted on 03/30/2012 9:15:55 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-134 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