I'm getting a bad feeling about all of this.

[Oceander]

Thank you for the reference. It is as you say.

I wonder, was there any call for Rehnquist to recuse himself, at the time?

Are the Justices exempt from having to recuse themselves?

I'm no expert on the subject (for lack of time and resources, I'm mainly using the Wiki articles here) although I do have some exposure to it; from what I understand, there was a lot of criticism of Rehnquist and his refusal to recuse himself; the wiki article on Laird v. Tatum discusses that subject very briefly.

The Supreme Court justices are not exempt from having to recuse themselves and have done so on any number of occasions. Again, the wiki article on recusal contains a decent discussion of when a Supreme Court justice will recuse him/her self along with a number of different instances in which particular justices have recused themselves. Frequently, they will recuse themselves when they have a financial interest that might be implicated in a decision, or when they are related to a party or an attorney in a case.

Whether a Supreme Court justice can be forced to recuse him/her self, or be punished for failing to recuse him/her self, I do not know; however, I would hazard a guess that in a sufficiently egregious case, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Associate Justice, might refer the matter to the Congress with the suggestion that the matter was a proper subject for impeachment hearings. But that's just my own wild speculation.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Kagan or Sotomayor in a losing effort may try to establish their bona fides.

They aren't that smart.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

Do you remember the SCOTUS decision on reverse-discrimination from the University Of Michigan students?

Need I say more?

[TalBlack]

Yours is the traditionally, historically correct response but I think these people are so far beyond the pale that they will let this thing get by them just like Hitler and the fellas’ let things get away from them.

[TalBlack]

Yours is the traditionally, historically correct response but I think these people are so far beyond the pale that they will let this thing get by them just like Hitler and the fellas’ let things get away from them.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Yours is the traditionally, historically correct response but I think these people are so far beyond the pale that they will let this thing get by them just like Hitler and the fellas’ let things get away from them.”

I could very well be wrong. I hope not.

[ctdonath2]

Excising the mandate and retaining the rest is akin to removing the entire first floor (supports included) of a high-rise building - what’s left won’t just stay where it is. Either the court goes thru the entire TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED pages (and that’s just the list of changes to existing law, that doesn’t represent the entire relevant US Code which must be analyzed) and makes whatever adjustments they either assume Congress intended (telepathy is not in their job description) or they want (to wit: judicial activism), or they chuck the whole thing and tell Congress to try again. As more than one judge indicated active opposition to the prospect of merely reading the whole thing, and as the mandate is the premise for much of what remains, full overturn is the only option.

I am looking forward to Thomas’ opinion. It will use the verdict as a jumping-off point for addressing & virtually setting precedent on related issues. I would not be surprised if he DID read all 2700 pages, and will issue a scathing microscopic review of the whole thing.

[ctdonath2]

There is a precedence, Social Security.

Yup. I was keen on NOT signing my kids up for it (let them decide their own involvement), but the ~$20,000 cumulative tax credit loss (to wit: penalty) each was rather persuasive.

And I expect that will be the model for the replacement. Sign up for qualifying health insurance, and the IRS will give you a 100% refundable tax credit. No penalty, but no excuse to not get coverage.