Skip to comments.Live Blog: Obama Health Law at the Supreme Court, Day 3
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 ...
A CNN/Fortune senior editor has a ‘Goebbels Moment’ about the arguments:
I love this post #160 on the other thread - this is about Justice Kennedy-
“Kennedy says Kneedler suggests court has expertise to invalidate some of law but not to judge whether rest says in place”
So, if I read this correctly, Kennedy points out that the government is suggesting that the SC has expertise to invalidate some of the law but NOT to judge the fate of the rest of it. ??
Am I reading this correctly?
Who wrote 0bamacare? If this thing is so great why hasn’t there been ANY discussion of it’s authors? Max “The Marxist” Baucus wrote part of it, Soros-funded ‘Center For American Progress’ wrote some of it.. The media has bent over backwards to NOT talk about this.. Gee, it’s almost as if the media hides disclosure of it’s authors in order to hide it’s MARXIST FOUNDATIONS. IT’S A MARXIST DOCTRINE AUTHORIZING THE GOV’TS THEFT OF ONE-SIXTH OF AMERICA’S ECONOMY FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR, and sneakily takes full control of students (student loans), implements dhimmitude, and other nonsense not relating to health care.
where do you get that idea from, health insurance co were doing fine before obamacare
The law is far too broad and far reaching to allow any part to stand without the mandate. Kennedy said such would be ‘extremely’ irrational.
Kennedy was likely just giving Kneedler a chance for clrification.
It is perfectly normal to strike down only part of a law that doesn’t have a severability clause- when it can be done.
The argument, of course, is over whether this is such a case.
ALL of 0bamacare should be VOIDED if the mandate is stricken. 0BAMACARE ITSELF MAKES NO PROVISION FOR SEVERABILITY, SO IT MUST BE STRICKEN ALL TOGETHER. The Democrats passed it this way, so.. SO BE IT, GENIUSES!
You do read correctly. I submit that passage of this law is not only a ‘step too far’ but a ‘marathon too far’, as is everything Obama does. He is SUCH a severe radical that even the liberals on the Court have to go a far ways to agree. I further submit the vote to strike mandate will be greater than 5-4.
The people indeed. In almost three days of proceedings, not a single word or reference to the Ninth Amendment and its sister clause, Necessary and Proper.
If Obamacare is necessary, (it isn't) it still does not pass the proper provision, for it is a bold faced assault on our natural right to select and contract for medical services.
6-3 with Ginsburg joining the majority??
That would make the liberals’ heads explode!
7-2 Neither of the noobies will not want to be the singular nay vote, but someone will pair up with one of them
It doesn't sound like they really want to determine this but send it back to congress. The Judges are giving these guys a run for thier money.....and it doesn't sound like the judges are co-operating with what the "Liberals" were hoping for at all.
Well the arguments the Judges are giving is most interesting....and they aren't giving the Government much wiggle room at all.
However, you are right in what you are saying....though I think the Judges are going to "show" they are not going to bend to Obama.....pay back perhaps?...and they know they have the people behind them.
Trying to get inside the heads of the Supremes is like imagining what an acid-trip is like when you’ve never done drugs...especially the Dyke, the un-wise Latino (sp) and the 98 year old Ginsburg...
Not Ginsberg. Soto.
Which is exactly why I held my nose and voted McCain/Palin and will do similarly this fall.
I can only pay you the highest compliment I can think of: Damn, I wish I'd said that!
Love it...they are saying what happens to the Insurance companies? .....needs to be addressed.....and the guy says it’s not the courts to acess the risk. LOL. What a show....I wouldn’t have missed this for nothing!
That is why I still think they will find an explanation to keep the mandate and the whole thing survives.
That does lead to a possible compromise. If the majority think the mandate is unconstitutional, but they lack the will to throw the whole thing out, they fashion a compromise - larger majority (say 6-3 or even 7-2) throw out the mandate (covering everyone butts and avoiding a 5-4 decision) but also agree to keep the rest of the law in place and drop it back on Congress to rectify (forget that that is impossible for now). That would be my second choice. Still think the law stands.
If Obamacare gets thrown out, it will be a 5-4 decision. There is not one Dem appointed judge on that panel that will overturn any part of Obamacare regardless of the ruse that 1 or 2 of them put up that they have serious reservations about parts of it. I cannot think of one Dem marquee legislation in the past 20 years that has been considered by the SC that a Dem appointed judge ever voted to overturn.
If the Senate changes hands in January, which is a strong likelihood, her impeachment should be one of the first orders of business in the House, then let the chips fall where they may, no matter who is president!
I would think that the parts of the law (or any law) that do not infringe on the Constitution’s laws and provisions would not be part of the court’s purview. But—I am no lawyer and defer to real ones on this.
I’ll bet you think the Gore/Bush vote was 5-4 because that is what the MSM told you. The gore vote was 7-2. My father clerked in the federal court system just out of college. When the court was deciding the Gore/Bush case he wrote the vol/page/para of what law the case would be decided and which jurist would vote which way. He gave the info to a local judge (friend) who opened it in open court the day the decision was announce. Dad was 100% correct.
He says either 7-2 or 6-3 The jurist will hold their positions long past BO, just as those who voted anti Gore and are still on the Court.
Do you mean they'll vote against Obamacare?
Dad says 7-2 against mandate 6-3 against bill.
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.
I have no more respect for SC judges, or any judge for what matters, than for congresspersons and presidents as to moral authority. I can respect certain individuals that are in these government positions but the stench of politics is always present. Perhaps I’m being too grouchy and carrying memories of my service in WWII and in which my brother was killed. This Nation has become like a Tower of Babel with all It’s immigration for feely-goody reasons and other intended purposes.The 4th of July is a party day more than a day of dedication to the Founders intentions. Though the need for a nation with the spirit of ‘76 is as urgent today as at any time in our history, the Nation is being corrupted by ‘change’ from many government actions.
Dem appointed judges fall in line when it is a marquee Dem piece of legislation that is being considered. Bush-Gore was not about the constitutionality of a Congressional legislative act.It was about the Fla Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Constitution.And even in that case the first SC vote on Bush-Gore WAS 5-4 (with all 3 Dems voting with Gore) that the Fla Supreme Court could not order a full recount without an objective measurable counting criteria. The second vote was 7-2 when the Fla SC tried to get around the ruling by ordering a limited recount. It did not involve new legislation. IMHO the only conflicted judge on that bench is Kennedy and he is the only one who will compromise with himself by striking down the mandate but not the entire bill under severabiity. My bet is 5-4 with Kennedy joining the conservatives in striking down the mandate and perhaps 5-4 or 6-3 with Kennedy joining with the Dems not to strike down the entire bill under severability.IMHO The Dems will vote in unison for all aspects of the bill.
Kennedy said today that leaving parts of the law in place would be worse than striking the entire thing. On that very note, ALL the justices were conflicted on how to possibly rule which parts would be left intact (a near impossible feat if you ask me).
This is NOT an opinion case like abortion.(which really was a states rights issue) There are rules in place that either must be followed, thrown out or rejudicated each time congress goes berserk.
IMO they will follow precedent/rules in place. It is NOT a tax, nor follow the current rules of commerce. It was an attempt by the over zealot congress to change the constitution via the judiciary. Not gonna happen.
I would agree with Kennedy on that. If insurers are still mandated to accept everyone regardless of preexisting conditions, there is nothing to stop people from having no insurance until the expensive medical condition occurs. The insurers cannot survive in such a system and single payer will then occur very quickly.
“Dad says 7-2 against mandate 6-3 against bill.
He pointed out a couple of things that Soto did at the time of her confirmation. He doesnt think shell be as liberal as BO wishes she were.”
From your Dad’s lips to God’s ear. I listened to both days’ of oral arguments last night. First time listening to SCOTUS. Contrary to many opinions, I had a hopeful impression that Soto might be more “open-minded.”
However, the statements and questions (and timing, i.e., the points of interruption) of Ginsburg and Kagan left me with a hardened impression that they were “politicking” -—Kagan more than Ginsburg.
Not surprising about Kagan. I have nothing good to say about her as a SCOTUS justice, other than that she has a pleasant voice. She does not belong on SCOTUS. She was put there by Obama for one reason, and one reason only. He knew she was a grateful cheerleader and could be psychologically depended on to do his bidding on ObamaCare.
Of course she should have recused herself on ObamaCare, but that was never going to happen (which is why she established personal precedent by recusing herself on the other cases). As far as Obama and she are concerned, she was born to vote in the affirmative for ObamaCare.
In all fairness, she may grow into a good justice, but she never belonged in SCOTUS in the first place.
After last night’s listening to the oral arguments, I feared what Chuckee has prognosticated today, but reading your’s and katieanna’s comments, I am more optimistic. Of course, we know what decision SHOULD be made, but I will be on pins and needles til I hear what decision IS made.
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.
IMO some justices take the negative side just to have an opportunity or a combatant author to write the opinion.
When they ruled that the decisions re abortion were states rights to determine what was legal (just as marriage is issue now) They will only determine how the acts in each state relate to the laws of that state.
Do not expect a new direction to be pointed out but a line drawn in the sand for prosperity.
That is precisely what the liberal members of the Supreme Court are, an extension of the legislative body.That is the biggest conservative criticism of the broad construction powers the liberal members of the court have acquired for themselves. The ability to fashion and amend legislation from the bench. They have a political philosophy and they fashion their interpretation of the law to advance that agenda.You speak of rules and laws as if they are subject to a strict interpretation.In an ideal world, they are and should be as conservatives argue. But liberals have it otherwise where they will surruptitiously insert their values and political philosophy into the argument and fashion their legal decision to accomodate those values. That is why all 4 Dem liberal judges will uphold all parts of Obamacare under a creative extention of the Interstate Commerce provision which the founders never intended.
My pleasure. You’re welcome!
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.
Hopefully, he’ll make snide ass remark about the Justices between now and then and they’ll all vote against it.
As far as I know, "severability" has never really been tested. It's thrown in there to show intent, more than anything else, but I don't think there's any case law that says its presence or absence is actually binding.
Traditionally, the Court places a lot of credence in the intent of Congress -- they will strike specific provisions that are unconstitutional, but leave the rest of the law alone.
In this case, IIRC, the severability clause was intentionally removed by the Democrats because they wanted to force the issue by making all or nothing -- it wasn't simple oversight. So that mucks up the whole intent issue. Plus, as Scalia points out, the traditional light-handed approach goes out the window when a law's central premise is voided.
We know that Congress didn’t read it....and were “shocked”...”shocked” I tell you when they read about the Form 1099 inclusion (which has been “outlawed”.
“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.”
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. Hence, imo they will try to help Obama, but there is little to nothing he can do to threaten them now. They are more powerful now than he frankly. Right now their arguments are falling like cheap suits. I’m sure they have no problem letting O. Reid and Pelosi take the fall all by themselves on this one; while their reputations can live to be saved later.
I hope you’re right but Liberals are Liberals and you have to have moral character to be worried about your reputation.
Agree entirely with your reasoning re: Kagan, but see my post #88. Kagan will take the fall and pass “bad” and unconstitutional ObamaCare. She was chosen, IMO, by physiological profile to do just that. After this decision, she is “unencumbered.”
I so very hope I am wrong about her. I would eat crow and think I am dining on lobster.
Re: my post #97. “physiological profile” ???. “psychological profile”!!! lol...
Kneedler and other liberals and democrats stand up and applause violation of the principles of judicial restraint when it suits his purposes.
Because, Justice Sotomayor, it's the job of SCOTUS to determine Constitutionality of laws. Oh, also, because of parachutes, pole vaults, and Pelosi.
And because Pelosi and Reid completely ignored the will of the people. They sacrificed the careers of the (D)s who voted for this monstrous power grab disguised as legislation.
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.