Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leegal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
I think that if it is ruled Constitutional, it is going to fire up the conservative voter base. Honestly, I think Obama is in worse trouble if the SC decides in favor of the mandate.
Click to expand...
It could go either way. A GOOD candidate would make hay all day long with the failure in leadership. Obama spent the first part of his presidency pushing through an unconstitutional healthcare program instead of dealing with the economy. Now the healthcare system is in shambles along with the economy.

But then many of those same lapses in leadership were apparent in 2008 and McCain didn’t seem interested in pointing them out.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I think that if it is ruled Constitutional, it is going to fire up the conservative voter base. Honestly, I think Obama is in worse trouble if the SC decides in favor of the mandate.
Click to expand...
If declared to be Constitutional, you may be right. He will then be smack in the middle of the fight with the Catholic Church over the HHS mandate on contraception/sterilization and the NEW mandate that would force universities to include abortion coverage in student health care plans. That second one just got rolled out and hardly anyone is speaking about it. Certainly mainstream media has been silent.

By that mandate, the Catholic Church, through Catholic universities, will be providing abortions now too.

The Bishops have not commented on the new compromise issued 3/16 but only published on 3/23. I expect it will be rejected by the USCCB. There’s a 90 comment period so that would be around mid-June, and about the time the decision is due to be issued by the USSC in the issues they are hearing over these 3 days.

I’m praying that God inspires them to do the right thing for this country.
 
Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court
nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court
Click to expand...
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.”
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the Obama administration.
Click to expand...
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code.
Click to expand...
“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,” said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday…
Click to expand...
Rest of story: nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court
 
Leegal said:
I agree – Vermilli choked.
Click to expand...
He has already lost two 9-0 decisions this year. Maybe we can benefit from the incompetence of the administration this time. 😃 Defending the indefensible is a tough challenge for the best lawyers, and Obama has picked less than the best throughout his administration, notably including Vermilli’s boss, Eric Holder.
 
Trader said:
Defending the indefensible is a tough challenge for the best lawyers, and Obama has picked less than the best throughout his administration, notably including Vermilli’s boss, Eric Holder.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The government is claiming that previous cases set the precedent for Obamacare, but even Kennedy suggested that the health care law is “unprecedented" in nature. Linking the current case to previous rulings is a failure in that regard and they have done little to present a compelling national interest to “modify” the constitution to accommodate this law.
 
CatholicGOPer said:
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.”
Click to expand...
National Geographic once did an article on cockroaches. There was a picture of a roach that had been trapped in a piece of amber for 325 million years, and it was the same as the cockroaches we see today. In other words, they have remained unchanged over at least that many years.

Gulliver’s Travels actually consists of five stories in which he was stranded on some unknown island. The last was ruled by a race of intelligent horses. He meets the leader of the horses who is curious about a human who could talk and he asks him about England, the place he came from. In his description [note the year], he includes several pages about lawyers:

“… there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves. …” Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels, AD 1726.
It would appear that lawyers, like cockroaches, have also remained unchanged for centuries.
Click to expand...
 
garn9173 said:
Yeah, yesterday was a bad day for Obama & his Solicitor General :D:cool:
Click to expand...
HOORAY! Serves them right! 😃 :rolleyes:

Here’s hoping that sanity will prevail on the high court and this ‘mandate’ is STRUCK DOWN!
BIG TIME!
 
sedonaman said:
It would appear that lawyers, like cockroaches, have also remained unchanged for centuries.
Click to expand...
Like the analogy. Now if only used car salesmen were around during Swift’s time;) and I wonder how they would fare running the country?

Peace, Graubo
 
I am a lawyer and I had the good fortune of having the U.S. Supreme Court accept argument on one of my cases. The actual oral argument, that I attended as a spectator, was handled by my boss and a team of Washington lawyers. My impressions from that experience is that until the opinion is rendered nothing can be assumed. I also don’t like the fact that anyone was “laughed at” as this type of disrespect is plain and simply improper in that forum.

That being said I am hopeful that the tenor of the oral argument will prove that the mandate will be found unconstitutional. I believe that it is. I am very troubled that our president, a Constitutional Law Professor, would actual spend the first two years of his presidency focused almost exclusively on this legislation that has very likely unconstitutional underpinnings. I also will not forget that this legislation was nearly enacted without a congressional vote. Clearly the power grab by the enactment of this legislation is unprecedented and frightening.
 
Twitter:

Scalia comment: it’s “totally unrealistic” to expect the Supreme Court to go through 2,700 pages of the health-care law and figure out which provisions should remain in place and which must be thrown out because they’re interconnected with the insurance mandate.

WSJ’s Kendall: Several justices express concern about harming insurers if mandate falls but the rest of the law stays in place

WSJ’s Kendall: Swing vote Kennedy worries about imposing a “risk” on insurance companies “that Congress never intended.”

WSJ’s Kendall: Scalia suggests it would be better to invalidate the whole law and let Congress start from scratch.

WSJ’s Kendall Roberts asks if there will be new litigation on remaining parts of law if court leaves law place without mandate

WSJ’s Kendall: Ginsburg says that if mandate falls, legislative branch should decide what should happen to the rest of law.

WSJ’s Kendall: Kneedler says justices should reject the challengers’ “sweeping” proposition that whole law must be invalidated

WSJ’s Kendall: Kneedler says most of the law’s provisions don’t even apply to the parties who challenged insurance mandate.
**Some justices seem open to saving parts of law **

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Justice kennedy said he worries about keeping the law in place without the mandate–“we may not know the consequences”

WSJ’sKendall Kagan suggests court has no business trying to guess if Congress would/wouldn’t have voted for other parts in law

WSJ’s Kendall Roberts suggests Kneedler made effective case that if mandate falls, guarantee that insurers accept all customers must go, too

Roberts has suggested that whole health law should be considered linked to the mandate.

WSJ’s Kendall: But, Roberts adds, that doesn’t tell the court what to do with all the many other provisions of the law.
About That ‘Limiting Principle’

talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/about_that_limiting_principle.php?ref=fpblg
 
I agree you can’t really say much after oral arguements as far as how those in the middle will vote. One can tell though from oral arguements which justices are strongly in favor or strongly against. And right now, that count looks to be 4 strongly in favor of the mandate and 3 strongly against with the Chief Justice and Kennedy in the middle. Albeit I made the assumption Thomas will vote against.
 
Tighty_Whitey said:
My impressions from that experience is that until the opinion is rendered nothing can be assumed.
Click to expand...
This attorney agrees. Same applies to ordinary court cases. You can’t be sure how the jury is going to vote until the jury foreman hands their decision to the judge.
I also don’t like the fact that anyone was “laughed at” as this type of disrespect is plain and simply improper in that forum.
Click to expand...
Was he actually laughed at, or was a humorous remark made? The headline implies the former, but it seems most unlikely at the Supreme Court.
 
It was a humorous comment. And I think everyone knew why it was made. The SG has been put into a terrible position of having to argue it is not a tax and then as a back up in case it is shot down on those grounds, that it is a tax. It simply is illogical.
 
LA Times:

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Alito saying law is NOT severable:
“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Click to expand...
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…
Click to expand...
Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum…

:signofcross:
 
Washington (CNN) – The heart of the health care law championed by President Barack Obama may be in judicial trouble, but the Supreme Court appeared very inclined Wednesday to keep the rest of the sweeping reform legislation intact.

On the final day of its marathon public debate over the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the justices tackled what would happen if they ruled against the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the key funding mechanism of the law.

At issue Wednesday morning was whether the entire law’s 450 or so provisions would have to be scrapped if the individual mandate were found unconstitutional.

A separate session is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on whether states would be “coerced” by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration by the risk of losing that funding if they refuse.

cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html
 
Kennedy, Roberts and Alito are saying it would ALL need to be scrapped. We know where Thomas will be.
 
gilliam said:
Washington (CNN) – The heart of the health care law championed by President Barack Obama may be in judicial trouble, but the Supreme Court appeared very inclined Wednesday to keep the rest of the sweeping reform legislation intact.

On the final day of its marathon public debate over the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the justices tackled what would happen if they ruled against the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the key funding mechanism of the law.

At issue Wednesday morning was whether the entire law’s 450 or so provisions would have to be scrapped if the individual mandate were found unconstitutional.

A separate session is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on whether states would be “coerced” by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration by the risk of losing that funding if they refuse.

cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html
Click to expand...
Did CNN even listen to same hearing that the LA Times is covering? Reading CNN’s selective quotes it appears that its all or none - not just parts.
And the court appeared in no mood to pick and choose.
Click to expand...
“You want us to go through 2,700 pages” of the law, asked Justice Antonin Scalia. “Is this not totally unrealistic … to go through one by one and decide each one?”
Click to expand...
Justice Anthony Kennedy said he was reluctant to take on this “awesome exercise of judicial power,” at the expense of congressional discretion.
Click to expand...
 
Tighty_Whitey said:
I am a lawyer and I had the good fortune of having the U.S. Supreme Court accept argument on one of my cases. The actual oral argument, that I attended as a spectator, was handled by my boss and a team of Washington lawyers. My impressions from that experience is that until the opinion is rendered nothing can be assumed. I also don’t like the fact that anyone was “laughed at” as this type of disrespect is plain and simply improper in that forum.

That being said I am hopeful that the tenor of the oral argument will prove that the mandate will be found unconstitutional. I believe that it is. I am very troubled that our president, a Constitutional Law Professor, would actual spend the first two years of his presidency focused almost exclusively on this legislation that has very likely unconstitutional underpinnings. I also will not forget that this legislation was nearly enacted without a congressional vote. Clearly the power grab by the enactment of this legislation is unprecedented and frightening.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to be too picky, but you are inflating the President’s resume. He was a lecturer at the University of Chicago and never made it to Professor. One of my cousins was a real Associate Professor at the same university and would still outrank him had it not been for a huge mistake on the part of the electorate.😉 It is bad enough that the university now counts him as one of the many Nobel Prize winners associated with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top