Keyword: scotus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Obamacare, Common Sense, and the Law

    03/29/2012 4:06:59 PM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 11 replies
    The Atlantic ^ | March 29, 2012 | by Clive Crook
    The best reason to rule Obamacare constitutional--the one that makes the answer seem obvious--is a matter of common sense. But that's a case counsel isn't allowed to make. The common-sense case goes like this. Contrary to what Justice Kennedy said this week, no important principle is at stake in this decision. For all practical purposes, the economic power of the federal government is no longer constitutionally constrained. Am I forgetting the Broccoli Question? If the government can force you to buy health insurance, what can't it force you to buy? The common-sense answer to this, as we've just seen, is...
  • Democrats fear health reform failure

    03/29/2012 3:19:44 PM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 15 replies
    The Financial Times ^ | March 29, 2012 | By James Politi
    When Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law two years ago, the long-held dream of the American left to move towards some form of universal healthcare coverage became reality. But the hearings this week on the constitutionality of its key provision – the requirement for individuals to purchase coverage or pay a penalty – have led many Democrats to fear they are in for a crushing disappointment. The Supreme Court will not rule on the validity of the law until June. But the oral arguments exposed a willingness by some justices on the court to consider striking down...
  • Liberals Face Rude Awakening As Obamacare Case Forces Them To Acknowledge Conservative Arguments

    03/29/2012 2:33:30 PM PDT · by · 20 replies ^ | Matthew Sheffield
    After three days of oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Obamcare, liberals seem genuinely stunned that Obamacare has a good chance of going down in flames. They never saw it coming. Consider this exchange between CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and anchor Wolf Blitzer on the first day of the argument which focused on the individual mandate, provision of Obamacare which forces all Americans to purchase medical insurance or procure it via their employers: TOOBIN: This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's gonna be struck down. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was...
  • Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down

    03/29/2012 1:50:01 PM PDT · by Sybeck1 · 260 replies
    TPM ^ | 3/28/2012 | sahil kapul
    A handful of Senate Democrats sought to assure doubtful liberals that the Supreme Court justices aren’t ready to strike down their crowning achievement, standing before cameras and mics Wednesday in front of the court. One warned that doing so would ruin the court’s credibility. “This court would not only have to stretch, it would have to abandon and completely overrule a lot of modern precedent, which would do grave damage to this court, in its credibility and power,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends...
  • Video: Why the White House should be afraid, very afraid, over the ObamaCare arguments this week

    03/29/2012 10:15:53 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 32 replies
    Hotair ^ | 03/29/2012 | Ed Morrissey
    Reason's Damon Root attended the final day of the ObamaCare oral arguments at the Supreme Court yesterday and has extensively analyzed the proceedings from earlier in the week as well, and concludes that the White House underestimated the difficulty of its task. While the Left has focused most of its blame on the performance of Solicitor General Donald Verilli, Root says that the problems stem from the arguments that the Obama administration made about the PPACA, and how quickly the justices poked significant holes in them: "If I was in the Obama administration, I would not be comfortable with how...
  • Kagan: ‘It’s Just A Boatload Of Federal Money,’ ‘It Doesn’t Sound Coercive To Me’

    03/29/2012 10:05:34 AM PDT · by · 53 replies ^ | March 28, 2012 | Gregory Gwyn-Williams Jr.
    Video in Story... Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan defended the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare today by arguing that "It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend" and concluding "It doesn't sound coercive to me." Kagan made her comments at today's Supreme Court hearing while questioning attorney Paul D. Clement who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional: Mr. Clement: "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act’s massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer...
  • Justice Breyer's unhinged Commerce Clause ramblings

    03/29/2012 10:12:12 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 20 replies
    Washington Examiner ^ | 03/29/2012 | by Conn Carroll
    I was listening to the tape-delayed Obamacare oral arguments in the car Tuesday when I first heard Justice Breyer's Commerce Clause diatribe, and I meant to post something when I got home. But after making dinner and putting the kids to bed, I forgot.Until today, that is, when I read Jeffrey Anderson's account of "Breyer's Missteps." I think Jeffrey is far too generous to Breyer. Here is a fuller transcript of Breyer's outburst: I look back into history, and I think if we look back into history we see sometimes Congress can create commerce out of nothing. That's the...
  • Kagan Sits in Judgment of Obamacare—Despite Cheering Its Passage and Assigning Lawyer to Defend It

    03/28/2012 4:06:09 PM PDT · by yoe · 54 replies
    CNSNews ^ | March 26, 2012 | Terence P. Jeffrey
    When the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA “Obamacare”—Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan showed up to hear the arguments and gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging the cases even though she had cheered enactment of Obamacare as an Obama political appointee and had personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court. A federal law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might...
  • Obamacare Arguments Lean Against Severability (How the Justices are leaning)

    03/29/2012 6:36:16 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 35 replies
    National Review ^ | 03/29/2012 | Carrie Severino
    After yesterday’s heartening arguments, today’s arguments carry even more importance, because it seems likely the Court will actually reach the severability question. If there are political consequences for the Court’s decision on the mandate argued yesterday, there could be even more consequences to today’s arguments. If the law is struck down in its entirety, expect the president to dust off his 2010 State of the Union talking points, which charge the Court with what he calls “judicial activism,” but in reality seem to criticize any court decision that finds a law of his unconstitutional. The justices on both sides seemed...
  • Predictions from Obamacare's Week in Court: Goodbye, Mandate?

    03/29/2012 5:24:59 AM PDT · by Servant of the Cross · 4 replies ^ | 3/29/2012 | Kate Hicks
    After a three-day marathon of oral arguments, during which the Supreme Court considered various facets of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, final impressions everywhere are mixed. Liberal supporters of the law have melted into hysterics on live television over the “train wreck” that was Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s defense. Smeared in red atop the Huffington Post were, “Obamacare on the Brink” and “Disaster.” James Carville now claims that Democrats will “win” if the Court overturns the mandate. Conservatives, meanwhile, are practically dancing in the street at the prospect of an unconstitutional ruling, which once seemed a remote possibility....
  • The Legal Wunderkind Challenging The Health Law

    03/28/2012 3:51:21 PM PDT · by Clintonfatigued · 17 replies
    National Pulblic Radio ^ | March 23, 2012 | Nina Totenberg
    Paul Clement is, quite simply, a walking superlative. A wunderkind who at age 34 became deputy solicitor general and then was promoted to the top spot, solicitor general of the United States, becoming the youngest person to hold that post in more than a century. Now 45, he has argued an astonishing 57 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other lawyer since 2000. And next week, he will lead the challenge to the Obama health care overhaul, in the Supreme Court. Like Donald Verrilli, the man he will be arguing against, Clement has won admiration and respect across...
  • The ObamaCare Argument – The Third and Final Day

    03/28/2012 3:45:25 PM PDT · by jazusamo · 21 replies
    PJ Media ^ | March 28, 2012 | Hans A. von Spakovsky
    The surest sign your lawyer hasn't done a good job is when you issue a statement defending his performance.Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s performance before the court has been widely panned as “weak and ineffectual.” Even liberal commentator Jeffrey Toobin called Verrilli’s arguments “a train wreck for the Obama administration.” But to judge the full measure of just how badly the government did in the last three days, all you have do is read the Administration’s statement to the press. In it, White House Counsel Kathryn Reummler claims that Verrilli “ably and skillfully represented the United States before the Supreme Court.”...
  • The Supreme Court: Conservatism’s Intellectual Crown Jewel

    03/28/2012 3:31:04 PM PDT · by bkopto · 13 replies
    Commentary ^ | March 28, 2012 | Peter Wehner
    Listening to the oral arguments on the Supreme Court during the last three days is a reminder of why it is, in many respects, the intellectual crown jewel for conservatives, and why it’s vital that those appointed to the high court aren’t simply reliable votes but are capable of making compelling arguments. To hear Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and even Kennedy slice and dice Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was sheer delight, as they exposed one bad argument and one flawed premise after another. Among other things, they pressed Verrilli on what the limiting principle was under the Commerce Clause. “Can...
  • Pelosi Has ‘No Idea’ Whether Supreme Court Will Strike Down Individual Mandate

    03/28/2012 2:09:15 PM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 35 replies
    ABC News ^ | March 28, 2012 | John Parkinson
    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today said she has “no idea” whether the Supreme Court will strike down a key provision of the health care law that she guided through Congress during her reign as speaker of the House two years ago. “I have no idea. None of us does,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said. Pelosi said congressional Democrats “have long believed in judicial review” as part of the country’s constitutional process, but said that as Democrats wrote the Affordable Care Act, “We were careful to honor our Constitution.” “I hope it’s better than [Conyers' 5-4 prediction], because we have one thing...
  • Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Seems Long Shot at SCOTUS

    03/28/2012 1:54:05 PM PDT · by Servant of the Cross · 16 replies ^ | 3/28/2012 | Kate Hicks
    It’s a testament to Paul Clement’s brilliant advocacy that reporters and spectators left the courtroom feeling less sure of a win for the federal government. Medicaid expansion was easily the hardest of the four issues he had to argue – both the lower courts previously had rejected the states’ premise – and he seemed to provide compelling evidence that coercion may be at play here. Justice Kagan hardly let the word “coercion” leave Mr. Clement’s mouth before she hit him with a very blunt question: “Why is a big gift coercive?” Therein lies the major distinction at the heart of...
  • Supreme Court Cheat Sheet Day 3: Scalia Unplugged

    03/28/2012 1:02:41 PM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 24 replies
    NPR ^ | March 28, 2012 | by LIZ HALLORAN
    And, as they did Tuesday, members of the court's conservative majority, — and Justice Antonin Scalia in particular — appeared supremely reluctant to allow the law, if gutted of the insurance mandate, to stand. Scalia lived up to his reputation for being one of the court's most voluble and humorous members. He tore into the government's arguments with relish, and joined his conservative colleagues in fretting openly about how a surviving law would affect insurance companies' bottom line. Here, then, are our top five Scalia moments from Wednesday morning's arguments: Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You...
  • Pelosi: Dems ready to accept Supreme Court verdict on healthcare law

    03/28/2012 11:44:00 AM PDT · by jazusamo · 83 replies
    The Hill ^ | March 28, 2012 | Mike Lillis
    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) said Wednesday that Democrats will accept the Supreme Court's ruling on her party's healthcare law — whatever it is. The California liberal – a champion of the bill who was crucial to its passage – said Democrats "were careful to honor the Constitution" in drafting the bill, but would respect the high-court's verdict, however it falls. "Democrats in the Congress have long-believed in judicial review," Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol. "We respect the third branch of government and the role that they play under our Constitution, and that is a...
  • Legal Analyst: Obamacare Goes From 'Train Wreck' To 'Plane Wreck'

    03/28/2012 11:07:23 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 42 replies
    Business Insider ^ | 03/28/2012 | Michael Brendan Dougherty
    Jeffrey Toobin tweeting from today's Supreme Court hearing on Obama's health care reform:  We're getting the quick reports now. There is just a 20 minute window for reporters at the court to file their dispatches from this morning's arguments over whether the individual mandate to buy health insurance could be separated (and struck down) separately from the rest of the law.  In other words: if the court finds the mandate is unconstitutional, does just the mandate go away, or does the entire law fall with it?  Over at SCOTUS Blog Tom Goldstein writes:  The Court is really struggling with severability. Generally...
  • Justice Kennedy: Would leaving parts of ObamaCare in place be more “extreme” than entire repeal?

    03/28/2012 10:36:32 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 14 replies
    Hotair ^ | 03/28/2012 | Ed Morrissey
    So far there doesn't appear to have been any fireworks — or more accurately, duds --- at the Supreme Court today as there were yesterday. In part, that's because the topics under review aren't as explosive: severability and Medicaid expansion. That doesn't mean that the day has been entirely uninteresting, either, as Philip Klein reports for the Washington Examiner: Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court this morning considered what to do with the rest of President Obama's national health care law if its individual health insurance mandate is struck down. Though it was difficult to get a clear read on...
  • Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

    03/28/2012 9:44:18 AM PDT · by Bill Buckner · 322 replies
    Fox43 ^ | March 28, 2012 | By David G. Savage
    The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional. "One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia. Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down. Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel...
  • Toobin: Hard To Imagine How Things Could Be Going Worse For Obama Administration

    03/28/2012 9:51:59 AM PDT · by C19fan · 17 replies
    CNN ^ | March 28, 2012 | Jeff Toobin
    CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin: “This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama Administration, and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble. It also seems that the individual mandate is doomed. I mean, Anthony Kennedy spent much of this morning talking about if we strike down the individual mandate, how should we handle the rest of the law? Now, it is less clear that they are going to strike down the whole law. There does seem to be some controversy in the court about that. Certainly there are some...
  • White House: We still have confidence in Donald Verilli (The RNC seems to like Verilli too)

    03/28/2012 8:50:22 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 15 replies
    Hotair ^ | 03/28/2012 | Ed Morrissey
    If so, the Obama administration might be alone on the Left in saying so. After the disastrous session of oral arguments on the individual mandate yesterday — which Jeffrey Toobin called “a train wreck for the administration” — most of ObamaCare’s backers were not exactly generous with Verilli. At Mother Jones, Adam Serwer called Verilli’s performance “abysmal,” and the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein criticized his delivery and noted that the liberal justices had to rescue him. A couple of journalists compared him to arguably incompetent sports figures like JaVale McGee and Billy Cundiff. That’s the kind of notoriety that Solicitors...
  • Loss of insurance mandate wouldn't kill health law

    03/28/2012 3:27:54 AM PDT · by tobyhill · 46 replies
    boston globe ^ | 3/28/2012 | Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar / ap
    President Barack Obama's health care law would not automatically collapse if the Supreme Court strikes down the unpopular requirement that most Americans carry medical insurance or face a penalty. The overhaul could still lurch ahead without that core requirement, experts say. But it would be more like a clunky collection of parts than a coherent whole. That would make an already complicated law a lot harder to carry out, risking repercussions for a U.S. health care system widely seen as wasteful, unaffordable and unable to deliver consistently high quality. Premiums could jump for people buying coverage individually, and for small...
  • Live Blog: Obama Health Law at the Supreme Court, Day 3

    03/28/2012 8:36:39 AM PDT · by katieanna · 133 replies
    Wall Street Journal ^ | March 28, 2012 | Wall Street Journal Court Reporters
    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.
  • Did Verrilli choke? And does it really matter? (Obamacare lawyer was 'passive' and 'stumbling')

    03/28/2012 7:47:59 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 26 replies
    Politico ^ | 03/28/2012 | By J. LESTER FEDER
    Tuesday may have been the biggest day in Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's career, when he went before the Supreme Court to defend the central tenet of the health care reform law. To many who were watching, it looked like he choked. "He was passive. He was stumbling. He was nervous," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told POLITICO. "I was just shocked.” His halting delivery was so pronounced that BuzzFeed mercilessly edited together 40 seconds of coughing, throat clearing and water-drinking. "I've seen him argue under pressure," said Arnold and Porter's Lisa Blatt, a former assistant to the solicitor general who's...
  • Today’s Arguments Tilt Against the Individual Mandate

    03/28/2012 6:31:10 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 10 replies
    National Review ^ | 03/28/2012 | Carrie Severino
    Today was the main event at the Supreme Court, debating the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The Court’s audience, including more than a few members of Congress, was full for the marathon two-hour argument. Even near the back of the courtroom, I shared a bench with three senators — the Court’s VIP section was obviously inundated. Solicitor General Verrilli had a rough start to his argument, speaking haltingly, stumbling, and stopping to take a drink. The solicitor general spent almost all his time trying to convince the justices that health care is, in fact, different from other markets. While Justices...
  • Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy

    03/28/2012 3:01:52 AM PDT · by Cincinatus' Wife · 31 replies
    Red State ^ | March 28, 2012 | Erick Erickson
    Yesterday the left descended into madness. The madness came early in the day. It happened shortly after 10 o’clock in the morning. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened his mouth and uttered his first question on the issue of the individual mandate. He asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” The question, the second asked yesterday morning, bothered the left. As the clock approached 11, Kennedy spoke again, sending shockwaves through the legal community. He stated matter of factly, _____________________________________________________ the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law...
  • Left Shocked by Court Developments

    03/27/2012 1:13:49 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 217 replies
    Rush ^ | March 27, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh
    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Grab sound bite two before we get to sound bites 23 and 24. This is last night. We'll do a little timeline here involving Jeff Toobin. Last night on Charlie Rose, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin -- who, by the way, for those of you old enough to remember, is the son of former NBC News reporter Marlene Sanders. He wrote a big book after the O.J. trial, and he's been at CNN for quite a while. And Charlie Rose said, Jeffrey Toobin, "How big a deal is this Obamacare case at the Supreme Court?" TOOBIN: Epic!...
  • Audio: Scalia lectures Verrilli on enumerated powers (“What is left, if the gov't can do this?”)

    03/27/2012 8:20:10 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 31 replies
    Hotair ^ | 03/27/2012 | AllahPundit
    The guy who uploaded this to YouTube calls it a “benchslap.” It's loads of fun, and the point about limited powers will sound familiar. The key part comes early when Scalia jumps in to challenge Verrilli's citation of Court precedent. Those cases dealt with commerce, he says; in this case, the legislation is aimed at people who aren't participating in commerce, i.e. people without insurance. That's a gut-punch to the left since, once you make that move conceptually, the Commerce Clause defense of the statute is hanging by a thread. You can follow his thinking over the rest of the...
  • James Carville: ObamaCare being struck down would be the best thing ever to happen to Democrats

    03/27/2012 8:12:20 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 63 replies
    Hotair ^ | 03/27/2012 | AllahPundit
    What’s the best part of this? The idea of a prominent Democrat interrupting his party’s Mediscare demagoguery to scold the right on increasing health-care costs for seniors? The fact that he thinks ObamaCare, which isn’t even defended as a cost-saving measure anymore, will effectively bend the curve on that? Or his palpable annoyance at the notion that enumerated powers might throw up a constitutional roadblock to something progressives really, really, really want to do? But never mind that. Is he right? He’s unquestionably right on how the left will spin the aftermath of the mandate being dumped: They tried, now...
  • How Paul Clement Won the Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments on Obamacare

    03/27/2012 4:36:28 PM PDT · by Clintonfatigued · 172 replies
    New York ^ | March 27, 2012 | Jason Zengerle
    Paul Clement has been receiving rave reviews for his performance during the second day of oral arguments over health-care reform before the Supreme Court. (“[T]he best argument I’ve ever heard,” SCOTUSblog Tom Goldstein raved on Twitter). But Clement’s finest moment may have come when he was completely silent. A little more than two minutes into Solicitor General Donald Verilli’s turn at the bar, Justice Anthony Kennedy interrupted him: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Kennedy’s query was an almost verbatim recital of Clement’s own talking point, part of the fundamental argument he has made against the individual...
  • The ObamaCare Arguments – The Second Day

    03/27/2012 3:23:33 PM PDT · by jazusamo · 9 replies
    PJ Media ^ | March 27, 2012 | Hans A. von Spakovsky
    Based on the questions posed by the justices today, the possibility that the mandate may be struck down went up sharply.It was a packed house at the Supreme Court today as lawyers Paul Clement and Michael Carvin tried to persuade the justices that the individual mandate — the centerpiece of Obamacare — is unconstitutional. Outside, the loud protests — from both sides of the question — continued. But inside the court was where you’d find a much higher percentage of political movers and shakers. Among them: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), U.S. Attorney General Eric...
  • Justice Scalia to Obama’s Solicitor General: ‘We’re not stupid’ [AUDIO]

    03/27/2012 1:56:30 PM PDT · by Sub-Driver · 99 replies
    Justice Scalia to Obama’s Solicitor General: ‘We’re not stupid’ [AUDIO] By Nicholas Ballasy - The Daily Caller 3:39 PM 03/27/2012 ADVERTISEMENT While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. made the Obama administration’s case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care law Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, telling Verrilli, “we’re not stupid.” Justice Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general appointed by President Obama to the high court, sided with Verilli in arguing that young people should be required by the federal government to purchase health insurance because eventually, others will subsidize their health care in the future....
  • A Supreme Court Precedent Against ObamaCare

    03/27/2012 1:49:32 PM PDT · by Twotone · 7 replies
    Oregon Catalyst ^ | March 27, 2012 | Steve Buckstein
    When federal and state law conflict, under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) federal law often takes precedence. But it doesn’t always. Oregon was in the forefront of what could be a very relevant exception. In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s “right-to-die” law, approved twice by Oregon voters. The U.S. Attorney General argued that federal law pre-empted the state law. The Supreme Court disagreed and found that states generally have wide discretion in regulating health and safety, including medical standards. Finding that the Bush administration’s reading of the federal statute would...
  • What happens if ObamaCare's individual mandate is thrown out?

    03/27/2012 12:10:52 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 35 replies
    FOX NEWS ^ | 03/27/2012 | By Peter Morici
    The Supreme Court is set to decide whether the Affordable Care Act requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance is an unconstitutional intrusion on personal liberty, or a reasonable discretion of federal powers to promote the general welfare. Conservatives, by persuading a majority of Justices to overturn the individual mandate, could reverse Washington’s relentless push to over regulate individual and business behavior, but they could ultimately instigate their worst nightmare—a single payer system akin to the British system. The vast majority of Americans believe that all citizens are entitled to some reasonable access to health care. However, folks with chronic...
  • Early SCOTUS Report: Individual Mandate May Be In Big Trouble

    03/27/2012 12:02:51 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 13 replies
    Forbes ^ | 03/27/2012 | Rick Ungar
    While you never know how things are going to turn out, the Supreme Court Justices played their expected roles in today’s hearing on the constitutionality of the individual health care mandate. By the end of the morning session, it appeared clear that the liberals on the Court are, as expected, far more inclined to buy the government’s argument that creation of the mandate is within the powers of Congress while the more conservative Justices have some real problems with the notion. At least that would be one’s conclusion if you base such a determination on the questions posed by the...
  • “Train wreck for the Obama administration” today on individual mandate

    03/27/2012 11:52:59 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 11 replies
    Hotair ^ | 03/27/2012 | Ed Morrissey
    Call it The Faceplant Heard Round The Nation. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who had earlier predicted that the Supreme Court would uphold the individual mandate, called the first half of oral arguments on the issue "a train wreck for the Obama administration," and openly predicted that the court would overturn at least that part of ObamaCare: The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating.Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question...
  • Justices Roberts, Kennedy and Scalia Attack Obamacare Mandate in Day Two

    03/27/2012 11:47:52 AM PDT · by Servant of the Cross · 21 replies ^ | 3/27/2012 | Kate Hicks
    There was talk of broccoli. And gym memberships. Even burials. All the potential future mandates Congress could enact, thereby forcing us to make purchases because it’s good for us, and it’s good for the country. Despite the hysteria you may be seeing from both supporters and opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it’s too difficult to say that one particular side “won” today. The questions were generally tough – especially from Justice Anthony Kennedy – and the final decision will come down to whether the Court decides that the mandate extends the commerce power too much, or...
  • Argument recap: It is Kennedy’s call

    03/27/2012 10:47:22 AM PDT · by bkopto · 13 replies
    SCOTUSBlog ^ | March 27, 2012 | Lyle Denniston
    If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior. If the vote had been taken after Solicitor General Donald...
  • David Rivkin on the important arguments and developments in the SCOTUS ObamaCare hearings

    03/27/2012 10:38:23 AM PDT · by american_steve
    Bill Bennett ^ | March 27, 2012 | Staff
    "Severability again is something you deal with after you win on a major provision like the individual mandate and the question is that does the rest of the statue come down or is it only the individual mandate?" - David Rivkin Listen to the radio interview on YouTube:
  • Administration Admits to Court: Under Obamacare, Select Group Can Get Health Care, Not Pay for It...

    03/27/2012 10:00:20 AM PDT · by Sopater · 21 replies
    CNSNews ^ | March 26, 2012 | Terence P. Jeffrey
    ( - President Barack Obama has justified the mandate in his health-care law that requires individuals to buy health insurance by arguing that it will eliminate free riders—that is, people who get health care (often from emergency rooms) but, lacking insurance, never pay anything back into the health-care system. "So that's why the individual mandate's important," Obama explained in a speech on Aug. 15, 2011. "Because the basic theory is, look, everybody here at some point or another is going to need medical care, and you can't be a free-rider on everybody else," said Obama. "You can't not have health...
  • Early Reports from Supreme Court - Kennedy Gets it

    03/27/2012 9:05:53 AM PDT · by Bill Buckner · 45 replies
    Kennedy apprears to be very critical of Mandate provision. LA times headline "Justices signal possible trouble ahead for health insurance mandate," they note: “Are there any limits,” asked Justice Anthony Kennedy... “If the government can do this, what else can it … do,” Scalia asked? Politico headline, "No Fifth Vote Yet to Uphold," ... "The conservatives all express skepticism, some significant. They doubt that there is any limiting principle.
  • Obama’s Lawyer Confuses Himself: Is the Mandate a Penalty or a Tax?

    03/27/2012 6:51:17 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 13 replies
    National Review ^ | 03/27/2012 | Avik Roy
    Is the individual mandate a penalty or a tax? That was today’s question at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for the Court, both the respondents — the states — and the petitioners — the Obama administration — agreed that the mandate was a penalty. So the Court had to hire an outside lawyer, Robert Long, to argue that the mandate was a tax. He didn’t get very far. “I would not argue that this statute is a perfect model of clarity,” Long conceded. The headline you’ll read in tomorrow’s paper is that the justices seemed nearly unanimous in objecting to the...
  • Nobody Doubts How the Liberal Members of the Supreme Court Will Rule

    03/26/2012 12:46:52 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 45 replies · 6+ views
    Rush ^ | March 26, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh
    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: I continue to think about the Obamacare oral arguments at the Supreme Court. You know, there's something about this that is genuinely troubling. We have nine members of the US Supreme Court. The media is focusing on five of them. Four of them are excused. Four of them are considered to be locked and loaded, and above and beyond question. And those are the four liberal justices. They are not expected to be open-minded. The media's not asking them to consider things outside their normal purview. But the four conservatives and the one moderate, Anthony Kennedy? The...
  • S.F. slayings suspect avoided deportation in 2006

    03/26/2012 5:42:44 PM PDT · by SmithL · 9 replies · 18+ views
    San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/26/12 | Kevin Fagan, Henry K. Lee, Justin Berton
    SAN FRANCISCO -- The suspect in last week's slayings of five people in San Francisco was ordered deported in 2006 after he served a prison term for robbery and assault, but because his native Vietnam would not issue travel documents for him, immigration officials had to let him go free, officials said Monday. Binh Thai Luc, 35, of San Francisco was released under the terms of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said undocumented immigrants must be released after six months if their country of origin won't take them back, according to officials with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement...
  • The ObamaCare Arguments – The First Day

    03/26/2012 2:41:33 PM PDT · by jazusamo · 17 replies · 12+ views
    PJ Media ^ | March 26, 2012 | Hans A. von Spakovsky
    The justices heard arguments on the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act to the case.It triggered a law school flash-back. Once again, I was in my least favorite class, federal tax law, listening to a discussion so arcane and bureaucratic that it was hard to stay awake. I speak, of course, of today’s 90 minutes of argument before the Supreme Court. At issue: whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) bars the court from considering this challenge to Obamacare until the plaintiffs have actually been forced to buy insurance or pay a penalty for not doing so. Don’t get me wrong. The lawyers...
  • Is the Mandate a Tax? Supreme Court Takes On Obamacare

    03/26/2012 2:21:17 PM PDT · by Servant of the Cross · 14 replies · 11+ views ^ | 3/26/2012 | Kate Hicks
    The most important case to reach the Supreme Court, ostensibly since Roe v. Wade, began with the words, “There is no reason to think Congress exempted the penalty as a tax.” No acknowledgement of the case’s significance. No grandiose declaration of constitutionality. In essence, it was a thesis statement – and a boring one at that, by many accounts. But the ensuing hour and a half of argumentation provided a glimpse into both the controversial and technical aspects of the healthcare debate – starting with the question on whether or not the Court should even issue a decision on the...
  • Alito to Verrilli: Is it a tax or isn't it?

    03/26/2012 11:03:27 AM PDT · by Sub-Driver · 19 replies · 27+ views
    Justice Samuel Alito was back in his skeptical mode today, chiding the Obama administration for — in his view — trying to have it both ways on whether the individual mandate penalty is a tax. The same justice who shook his head at President Barack Obama during the 2010 State of the Union address, appearing to mouth the words “not true” when Obama criticized the Citizens United decision, gave Solicitor General Donald Verrilli a hard time Monday about the administration’s views on the mandate penalty: JUSTICE ALITO: General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax....
  • Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

    03/26/2012 11:44:58 AM PDT · by Sub-Driver · 95 replies · 100+ views
    Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.” The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy. The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the...
  • Howard Dean predicts Supreme Court will declare individual mandate unconstitutional

    03/26/2012 11:14:46 AM PDT · by Sub-Driver · 22 replies · 6+ views
    Howard Dean predicts Supreme Court will declare individual mandate unconstitutional By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller 9:48 AM 03/26/2012 ADVERTISEMENT On Monday’s “CBS This Morning,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean broke with Democratic Party ranks once again on the issue of Obamacare. But this time, he did it in terms of how he thinks the Supreme Court will view the law. Host Charlie Rose asked Dean, a physician and former Democratic presidential candidate, if he thought the individual mandate would ultimately be declared unconstitutional. “I actually think that’s what they’re most likely to do before, of course, we’ve heard...