Based on the questions posed to Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the state challengers to the individual mandate, it appears that the mandate is in trouble. It is not clear whether it will be struck down, but the questions that the conservative Justices posed to Clement were not nearly as pressing as the ones they asked to Solicitor General Verrilli. On top of that, Clement delivered a superb presentation in response to the more liberal Justices’ questions. Perhaps the most interesting point to emerge so far is that Justice Kennedy’s questions suggest that he believes that the mandate has profound implications for individual liberty: he asked multiple times whether the mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and individuals, so that it must surpass a special burden. At this point, the best hope for a fifth or sixth vote may be from the Chief Justice or Justice Alito, who asked hard questions to the government, but did not appear to be dismissive of the statute’s constitutionality.
He will appeal it.
To WHO? We're talking about the Supreme Court, the only one that is required to exist per the Constitution. There is no higher court in the US.
To WHO? We're talking about the Supreme Court, the only one that is required to exist per the Constitution. There is no higher court in the US.
To WHO? We're talking about the Supreme Court, the only one that is required to exist per the Constitution. There is no higher court in the US.
I am surprised that Obamacare was not made into a Constitutional Amendment, so it cannot be challenged. O-) :mental: Thankfully, adding a new amendment is not easy and rarely happens.
The real surprise was Kennedy. He was the one I thought would go left with this, but he was asking some hard questions too.
--course that no guarantee of anything. we could still lose this.
That said, either way its a win. Its an election issue to hang on Obama, or its defeat can be hung on Obama: themanboyconstitutional law professorsocialist who couldn't pass constitutional muster.
I'm gonna :rofl: when the SCOTUS in it's decision points out the absence of a severability clause in the legislation in it's decision, and tells the boy Caliph in no squishy, spinnable terms that the whole damned thing goes down the shitter, not just the mandate.
Call me cynical but I have come to believe that everything a politician or a judge, (Judges in this case) says (or in this case rules on) has become nothing more than a charade!
It would not surprise me in the least to see the 9 'gods' in black robes .. put on a 'fake' show .. fooling the people into thinking that they are on 'The Peoples' (Constitutional) side when .. at the end of it all .. SURPRISE .. "We Deem It To Be Constitutional"!
We saw it in Roe vs Wade and I believe that we might just see it here!
This question of whether or not the Government does or doesn't have the right to Tell the People that they Have to Buy what the Government Wants you to buy is a no brainer and Should Not take 'one second' to decide!
IF the Government can tell the people to buy health care .. The Government can Tell you to Buy anything!
Smoke and Mirrors!
With the exception of the 'wise latina', the Abe Fortas wannabe, and the cow from the ivory tower, I'd like to think the Supreme Court is a little more centered than the rest of Washington. I could be totally and completely incorrect, but so be it.Has she recused herself ? I haven't heard yet.
At least Kagan has to recuse herself from this case, so a 5-3 decision might be a possibility.
The government's defense of the ACA also relied upon the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause and taxing power. Those issues did briefly come up during the two-hour long arguments but were very much overshadowed by the debate over the mandate's relationship to federal authority in regulating commerce.Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/27/swing-justice-poses-tough-questions-on-obamacare-at-supreme-court-hearing/#ixzz1qNRZiAN2)
Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom, did not speak in the courtroom. But his views on the expansion of the Commerce Clause have been clearly articulated in past cases where he objected to increased federal power. Based on those writings, it is widely assumed that he will similarly object to the scheme presented here.
Lawyers for the 26 states opposed to ObamaCare and the National Federation of Independent Businesses also faced tough questions from the justices. But by the time each took the lectern in the second hour of arguments, the Court's direction seemed clear.
For the second day in a row, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were in the courtroom. A number of prominent lawmakers from Capitol Hill were also in attendance. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and major supporter of the law, looked concerned over the questions Kennedy asked.
Wednesday's final day of arguments will be split into two sessions. The first will examine whether the rest of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate if the high court strikes down that provision. The last case looks at the law's provision to expand Medicaid coverage. The challenging states call that part of the law coercive.
To WHO? We're talking about the Supreme Court, the only one that is required to exist per the Constitution. There is no higher court in the US.
Yep. No where else to appeal it. U.N.? Don't make me laugh, Kyle. I want this over with because the precedent could kill many entitlement programs and relegate them back to the states.There is always that ignore factor that Obummer uses .. quite often!
I also have that ignore option. What the Kenyan doesn't realize is, every natural-born southerner has the rebel instinct in them. ...and the liberals are ill-prepared to deal with it if they decide to push it.
TRG - it's my firm belief that the chuckleheads who willingly and knowingly surrender their personal choice and freedom do so because they've been coddled. They've never known a time when they DIDN'T have a choice and DIDN'T have personal freedom.
They don't know what they're giving up because they've never not had it. Simple as that. You don't miss it until you don't have it.
Unless you've served to protect those freedoms. And even then, some of those with whom I served are staggeringly stupid with their embrace of socialism. That right there just blows me away...
I'm torn between believing what you said above and believing that they just don't care. Libtards never beleive in personal responsibility....and they preach it and put it into practice so much in every day life that I honestly tend to beleive that people that support Obama care are perfectly content with being taken care of and never doing anything for themselves.
You're right about that. They're just as nice and easy going as Frank....until you stir them up.
Now I'm the kinda man that'd not harm a mouse
But if I catch somebody breakin in my house
I've got twelve gauge shotgun waiting on the other side
So don't go pushing me against my will
I don't want to have to fight you but I dern sure will
So if you don't want trouble then you'd better just pass me on by
So the basic argument from the Government is ...
Perhaps the most interesting point to emerge so far is that Justice Kennedy’s questions suggest that he believes that the mandate has profound implications for individual liberty: he asked multiple times whether the mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and individuals, so that it must surpass a special burden.
Why didn't Kennedy understand these same implications when he ruled against Susette Kelo in Kelo vs. New London, Ct.?
Call me a wild-eyed optimist, but I think it's going down. Even Kennedy said the law represents a "fundamental change" in the relationship of the government to the people.
If the Court approves this, there are zero limits to federal power. That's what Kennedy's line of questioning pointed out to me. The SG had no answer at all to this. It's a shame for Obama that TOTUS wasn't allowed into the room.
Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
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.
Their (New London's) motivations for taking this action is where the disagreement entered the fray, he broadly remained above that........whichever side of this issue you come down on personally, he basically punted constitutionally, and it's hard to argue with his logic.
Since this decision, a flurry of state statutes have been passed to prevent such actions, and in his view, this is where the responsibility really lies to regulate such activities.
doc
Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
Technically they may have no choice......since the Democrats failed to include a severability clause.......
doc
Which is what I don't get. From what I've read, there was a severablility clause in it but they took it out. That can't be blamed on the GOP since they were locked out of the negotiations.
Technically they may have no choice......since the Democrats failed to include a severability clause.......
doc
James Carville and Dingy Harry have already come out and said that if it is overturned, it's a win for Democrats. I fail to see how, but if it is upheld, the Republicans would have no problem winning the Presidency as well as getting a fillibuster-proof Senate, IMO.
I think it goes down 5-4. They may be taking their 'straw poll' even as I type. (I heard last night that this is their procedure, and writing the opinions take the time involved in it.)
Yep, and now the $64,000 Question:
The failure of Obamacare (should it come to pass) is going to be blamed on whom (by the voters)?
Pelousy?
Dingy Harry?
"Plugs" Biden ("This is a big f'n deal!")
or Barry?
Furthermore, how does this impact Romney's apparent climb to the RNC nomination?
All of this is probably worthy of a new thread, but I just thought I'd throw it out there now.
Based on my (admittedly brief) review of his opinion in this case he determined it to be a "micro" rather than a "macro" issue regarding constitionality, inasmuch as the COTUS prevents federal intervention into (most local) issues, however leaves powers vested in the states (and communities).......since this was essentially a community issue, he determined that New London's actions were "constitutional" in the strictest sense of the term.
Their (New London's) motivations for taking this action is where the disagreement entered the fray, he broadly remained above that........whichever side of this issue you come down on personally, he basically punted constitutionally, and it's hard to argue with his logic.
Since this decision, a flurry of state statutes have been passed to prevent such actions, and in his view, this is where the responsibility really lies to regulate such activities.
doc
Wouldn't that, in itself, be unconstitutional? Say a state or city comes in and wants to condemn my property and give it to a private investment firm that wants to build a shopping mall, giving the state and/or city more tax revenue than I would give. I bring up the 4th Amendment which states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
and tell them it's illegal for them to seize my property. When they ask on what constitutional basis I'm making my argument for using the 4th Amendment, I bring up the 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
and since this isn't "for public use", they have no basis. Will they say, "Oh, well it's not the federal government doing it, it's the state or local government doing it. Hmm, Ok, well how about Article VI, Section 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Which states the US Constitution overrides any state Constitution when the two conflict.
I think that was one of the most disastrous rulings in the past 50 years. It did more to harm individual freedom than any other ruling in the past. Without the right to private property, there is no freedom.
It doesn't look good for the bill. Some of the justices are saying that the individual mandate is the main issue. If they do keep it in tact, they will take that out. And the individual mandate is what Obama wants. I feel bad for him, not.
Without the mandate, there is no Obamacare.
Regardless of what the MSM/Liberal "spin machine" states publicly, this is Obama's signature issue for his presidency, the only basis for any "legacy" at all........if this goes down, the electorate will breathe a huge sigh of relief, as many don't trust the Republicans to repeal it (especially Romney), as to who gets the blame, I don't think anyone cares except the Liberal base......who will be greatly disheartened......this was their best opportunity since FDR to make large advances in their agenda......and they failed miserably......
The Obama administration will fall into obscurity far behind Carter, America's first "Affirmative Action" president, and in their heart of hearts, most will believe that it turned out just like everything else that Affirmative Action has spawned.....as a "speed bump" in American history.....a mistake that was corrected.
Tough shit.....
doc
Technically they may have no choice......since the Democrats failed to include a severability clause.......
doc
Without the mandate, ObamaCare would drive the insurance companies into bankruptcy.
This paving the way to a single payer system, which IMO, has been the plan all along.
Regardless of what the MSM/Liberal "spin machine" states publicly, this is Obama's signature issue for his presidency, the only basis for any "legacy" at all........if this goes down, the electorate will breathe a huge sigh of relief, as many don't trust the Republicans to repeal it (especially Romney), as to who gets the blame, I don't think anyone cares except the Liberal base......who will be greatly disheartened......this was their best opportunity since FDR to make large advances in their agenda......and they failed miserably......D@MN DOC
The Obama administration will fall into obscurity far behind Carter, America's first "Affirmative Action" president, and in their heart of hearts, most will believe that it turned out just like everything else that Affirmative Action has spawned.....as a "speed bump" in American history.....a mistake that was corrected.
Tough shit.....
doc
Technically they may have no choice......since the Democrats failed to include a severability clause.......A talking head on the radio was discussing this today. He said the severability clause WAS there, but the Democrats took it out at the last minute. It was removed deliberately to pressure the USSC, in other words, "Strike this down and you take health care away from ALL Americans!"
doc
More discussion. It was suggested that one or both justices appointed by Obama may vote to repeal as well. this would remove the great yoke from Obama's neck in the election, and interesting from Romney's too.
Regardless of what the MSM/Liberal "spin machine" states publicly, this is Obama's signature issue for his presidency, the only basis for any "legacy" at all........
Agreed. Dear Leader's top legislative victory will have been deemed un-Constitutional, or IOW, he supported imposing something upon the American people that was ILLEGAL. Doesn't matter which Republican wins the nomination, that's something that can be pounded day after day after day in every stump speech given. The current POTUS, the one sworn to uphold the Constitution, made the centerpiece of his first (and hopefully only) term a Bill that violated the very Constitution he swore to uphold. Not something that would make things better for him.
.
Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case
By Jan Crawford Topics Supreme Court
(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
And the smartest man in the universe that has or ever will live.
But, but, but,, he is a Constitutional Scholar! How could he be wrong?????? :-)
And now the 5th Circuit adds to the fire! :fuelfire:
Go 5th Circuit! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:
The rest of the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/
They are talking about this on The Five right now. :popcorn:
Yup--Andrea Tanteros is doing well.Rush calls her Andrea Tarantula.
No way in hell would Obamacare have made it through the Constitution Amendment process. We need not worry about that EVAH.
The DUmbass keeps tellin' every press "operative' that will listen, that the American people are all for this piece 'o crap!
Never mind the fact 72% want to ash can this POS!
The guy is livin' in "Never Never Land"! How he can keep a straight face and keep tellin' his lies is beyond my comprehension!
How ya doin' Euph? Been gone for a few months tendin' my body and keepin' the Ranch from turnin' into a lake.
D@MN DOC
I am new to the forum and can't find the 'Friend' button!? :yahoo:
I only wish that I could express myself .. 'half' as well! :cheersmate: