Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leegal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Justice Kennedy and the Novelty of the Health Care Law

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=28548
Twitter:

WSJ’s Kendall: Kennedy asks whether court has competence to decide in detail if certain provisions of the law should stay/fall

WSJ’s Kendall: Kneedler says that if the court strikes down the Medicaid expansion, other provisions should remain in place.

WSJ’s Kendall: Roberts asks what should happen to rest of the law if court strikes down the law’s expansion of Medicaid.

Salia signaled he thinks that if the mandate falls, whole health care law goes. Called mandate “the guts” and “the heart” of law

WSJ’s Kendall: Scalia suggests never has been SC case where justices struck down the heart of a law but left the rest in place

Scalia and Alito both talked about risk insurance companies could go bankrupt if only individual mandate is struck
 
_Abyssinia said:
Scalia and Alito both talked about risk insurance companies could go bankrupt if only individual mandate is struck
Click to expand...
Exactly! As I’ve pointed out (and Ridge–where has he been?–as well), this seems to be what is desired. Obamacare seems designed to fail so that the government can take an even bigger role. Strike down the mandate but keep the rest? Insurance companies go out of business and Uncle Sam steps in to save the day.
 

There is no guarantee yet, but at least 5 Justices seemed receptive to striking down the entire law because they could not work out how it would work without the mandate.​

Twitter:

Scalia notes there wouldn’t be 60 Senate votes to break filibuster and repeal entire law if rest stayed on books.

Scalia said that after court ripped the heart (the mandate) from law he preferred to see the entire creation die.

Gingsburg on how much of the law to strike: “It’s a choice between a wrecking operating or a salvage job.” boston.com/Boston/whitecoatnotes/2012/03/court-prepares-hear-final-day-arguments-health-care-law/6o7G1cjSNRMbv31W0dhCYK/index.html

SCOTUSblog, who are pro-PPACA, hope that striking down the law in its entirety is too big a step for Justice Kennedy:

forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/28/obamacare-at-the-supreme-court-day-three-rapid-reactions

Ginsburg: “the conservative approach would be salvage, not wrecking ball.”

Audio and transcript of today’s arguments available:

supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-393
 
SamH said:
…
“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...
Looks like they might rule on only the mandate and leave the rest for another day.
 
“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...
Is Nancy Pelosi in the courtroom? Perhaps she can explain that “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”!
 
Ouch:
“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...
:rotfl:
 
Tighty_Whitey said:
Classic!!
Click to expand...
Seriously. I don’t know why Pelosi or Reid aren’t required to be in the courtroom defending this monstrous piece of legislation. They are the ones who expended all of their political capital to get it passed without a single Republican vote (not ONE) and through Senate budgetorial manuevers.
 
**Obamacare Mandates Justified by ‘Interstate Commerce’? **

nationalreview.com/articles/294623/obamacare-mandates-justified-interstate-commerce-thomas-sowell
On Obamacare’s Mandate, Don’t Celebrate Yet

nationalreview.com/corner/294634/obamacares-mandate-dont-celebrate-yet-avik-roy
Health Insurance Companies Are Praying ObamaCare Will Stand

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/28/health-insurance-companies-are-praying-obamacare-will-stand
**The Key Issue In the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare Verdict March 28, 2012 **

galen.org/topics/the-key-issue-in-the-supreme-courts-obamacare-verdict
 
_Abyssinia said:
Why overturning health care would be a Democratic disaster

politico.com/politico44/2012/03/why-overturning-health-care-would-be-a-democratic-118957.html
Click to expand...
That’s true enough on its face. But spinning a loss as a win, in the larger sense, is a little like praising the tsunami because you had forgotten to water your houseplants.
Click to expand...
Hill Democrats (and the current mayor of Chicago) always feared the 18-month battle on health care reform would turn out to be a colossal time-suck and expenditure of political capital, during a time (2010-11) when the U.S. economy was swooning back into another recession. Democrats still make the point that those months of distraction could have been better spent on the economy and jobs.
Click to expand...
See post 80.
 
If the supreme court strikes down in whole or part the healthcare case before it, will that nullify or perhaps soften the HHS mandate?
 
sedonaman said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they use witnesses.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. The Supreme Court, except in very narrow circumstances, is an appellate court. It hears arguments from appellate attorneys; it does not hear new testimony.
 
My concern is that they will invalidate the mandate only and leave the rest of the bill standing.

Bear in mind, the mandate was intended to make the rest of the bill workable – without it, it’s a mess, and it will destroy the entire health care system in short order.

My bigger concern is that all of this was precisely Obama’s intention all along, hence the severability clause.
 
sedonaman said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they use witnesses.
Click to expand...
They don’t, but they are the two that were primarily responsible for getting it passed. If the court wants to know what the “intent” of the law was, what the consequences of parts of it being overturned are, why not ask the two individuals who are directly responsible for the content of it? I mean, they are just a few blocks away.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Yes, you are correct. The Supreme Court, except in very narrow circumstances, is an appellate court. It hears arguments from appellate attorneys; it does not hear new testimony.
Click to expand...
My point is that the court may try to infer intent of the legislation when ruling on it. They wouldn’t have to infer anything, they could just directly ask the people who were directly responsible for the content of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top