Obamacare Oral Arguments Day 2 - The Mandate (Not Looking Good for Obamacare)

[TVDOC]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/obamacare-oral-argument-day-2-the-mandate/

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.

More at link......

doc

[thundley4]

Will overturning ObamaCare energize his base in the hope that he can ram through an even worse program?

[Kyle Ricky]

He will appeal it.

[docstew]

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.

[DefiantSix]

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 believe Kyle's tongue may have been firmly planted somewhere in his cheek when he wrote that.

As for who he'll appeal it to, he'll treat it with the same regard he's handled all other demands from the high court that he cease unconstitutional activities.  He'll ignore it, thereby appealing to his puppet master, Herr Soros.

[Kyle Ricky]

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 sure he and his cronies will find a way.

[Crazy Horse]

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.

The UN of course

[Ptarmigan]

I am surprised that Obamacare was not made into a Constitutional Amendment, so it cannot be challenged. Thankfully, adding a new amendment is not easy and rarely happens.

[Eupher]

I am surprised that Obamacare was not made into a Constitutional Amendment, so it cannot be challenged. Thankfully, adding a new amendment is not easy and rarely happens.

No way in hell would Obamacare have made it through the Constitution Amendment process. We need not worry about that EVAH.

[Mr Mannn]

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: the man who couldn't pass constitutional muster.

[thundley4]

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: the man boy constitutional law professor socialist who couldn't pass constitutional muster.

FIFY

[mrclose]

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!

[DefiantSix]

I'm gonna 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.

[thundley4]

I'm gonna 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.

I hope they do and don't do the severing themselves in some messed up decision.  Without the mandate, then the other provisions would drive the insurance companies into bankruptcy quite fast which would give way to socialized medicine.  I've wondered if that wasn't their plan all along.

[obumazombie]

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!

And sleight of hand. That's the inaction figure's left hand.

[Chris_]

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.

At least Kagan has to recuse herself from this case, so a 5-3 decision might be a possibility.

[obumazombie]

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.

At least Kagan has to recuse herself from this case, so a 5-3 decision might be a possibility.

Has she recused herself ? I haven't heard yet.

[Chris_]

I thought she was supposed to.  Apparently, I'm wrong.

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.

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.

Fox News

[Rebel]

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.

[mrclose]

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!

[Rebel]

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.

[Rebel]

ESPECIALLY his NBPP contingent. We'll have those jackasses slaughtered before its time to start prepping for lunch.

[txradioguy]

So the basic argument from the Government is "at some point everyone will have to use healthcare".
 
Ok apply that to other things.
 
At some point everyone has to breathe.
 
At some point everyone has to eat.
 
At somepoint everyone has to (insert everyday normal activity here).
 

If the government beleives that they can and have the legal right to tell you to purchase healthcare "before the point of sale" at the Solicitor general put it...they will have the legal right to tell you you can or can't do anything in your life because "at some point" you're going to do...something.
 
This isn't about ensuring affordable healthcare for everyone...this is about the ability of the Federal Government to attempt to control everything you do from taking a dump to taking a breath.
 
And what absolutely boggles my mind is that certain people will see that and have it explained to them and they won't care. How anyone can willingly and knowingly surrender their personal choice and freedom that way.
 
The saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" was coined for instances just like this.

[Eupher]

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...

[JohnnyReb]

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.

You're right about that. They're just as nice and easy going as Frank....until you stir them up.