Posted on 03/26/2012 8:11:01 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Edited on 03/26/2012 10:25:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I will be live-blogging the Supreme Court hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from March 26 to 28, beginning at 10 a.m. on Monday. I invite readers and NRO contributors to chip in with their observations. I will also incorporate Twitter feeds from various people from the health-care and legal worlds who are covering the case.
This is my first time running a live-blog, so my apologies if there are beginners’ technical glitches. See you in this space on Monday!
Audio:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/11-398-Monday.mp3
Transcript:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf
Windows Media:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/wmafiles/11-398-Monday.wma
Real Audio:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/realplayerfiles/11-398-Monday.ra
Actually, the question for today is the penalty, not the mandate. No one's arguing that Congress doesn't have the authority to levy a medical devices tax -- it's whether or not the mandate's penalty qualifies as a tax that is today's subject.
If the answer to that is "yes", then the rest of the argument becomes moot, because the USSC will punt until 2014.
Audio NOW at http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/
As I understand it (I’m not a lawyer)
Day 1 (today): Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the case... at least the ‘tax’ portion. Arguments about applicability of the Anti-Injunction Law to Obamacare. Arguments about whether the failure to buy insurance (as required by the Individual Mandate) constitutes a tax or a penalty. (Duh, it’s a penalty). If they rule it’s a tax, then arguments on this cannot be done until 2015 or later. SCOTUS hired their own guy to investigate this.... they are taking it seriously.
Day 2: Individual Mandate arguments.
Day 3: Severability issues.
Today’s Oral args. up on CSpan now.
The SCOTUS has released the audio and TRANSCIPTS!
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday
Thanks for starting this thread. Very important issue to follow carefully.
Thanks again!
BTTT.
MP3 Audio File
Windows Media File
Real Audio File
Adobe PDF of Transcript
Amen and Amen.
katie, see #53.
Yes, Nancy, we are very series!!
No. There is a special rule for tax cases: a statute says that no federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin a tax law. (Taxes can be challenged in court in other ways, but often only after the tax has been paid.) The issue for today's arguments is whether the individual mandate is a "tax," in which case its constitutionality can't be decided until 2014, or a "regulation," in which case its constitutionality can be decided now.
I wonder if they've ever regretted selling out the country, for a seat on the dark side. Only, once you've signed that pact, there's no turning back...or, it would be extremely difficult to.
Nah. They likely have no trouble sleeping at night.
Ping to audio & transcripts at #56
One of the lower courts held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred any challenge to the constitutionality of the individual mandate before 2014. The Obama administration is not making that argument, so the Court appointed a lawyer to argue the lower court's position.
Justice Scalia got a laugh from the gallery from his comment (beginning at 16:31 minutes in) where he says that all federal courts are intelligent. ;p
That’s what I have been thinking too, she might might vote against. She’s been appointed and installed, so she doesn’t need Obama and her place in history will be more important. She surely can see which way the wind is blowing.
Was Scalia being serious?
Thanks for the correction.
Appreciated... boy, my untrained ear is having a real hard time with these audio bits.
Justice Ginsburg says something interesting.
“The Tax Injunction Act does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law rather than to raise revenue. And this is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it’s successful, they won’t — nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise.”
Cool live chat feed. I sure hope they do the right thing here...and also do the will of the people!
GET RID OF THIS ABOMINATION!!
Funny exchange between Ginsberg and the Solicitor General (paraphrased):
RBG: ‘So if a person who is supposed to buy insurance, doesn’t do so, and pays the penalty.... if they are asked if they’ve ever violated a federal law, have they?’
SG: ‘Our position is that they should answer “No” - they have not violated federal law.”
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
Alito: (I think) ‘You keep saying “the tax”...’ (laughter)
SG: ‘The tax-penalty’
Wow! Even liberals make sense sometimes.
Nice clarification between “tax” and “penalty”.
Any variant of that applicable to the NFA transfer tax? to wit: some (*cough*paltry*cough*) revenue will be raised, nowhere near enough to cover tax office operating costs, because a few hardcore people will be willing to pay for permission to do something the tax is designed to discourage?
Another interesting comment from Justice Ginsburg:
“This is a suit that is challenging the must-buy provision, and the argument is made that, if, indeed, “must-buy” is constitutional, than these complainants will not resist the penalty. So what they’re seeking is a determination that that “must-buy” requirement, stated separately from penalty, that “must-buy” is unconstitutional, and, if that’s so, that’s the end of the case; if it’s not so, they are not resisting the penalty.”
This is way to big to politicize. It will impact the lives of liberals as well as conservatives. I feel they are going to do the right thing.
bttt
Another laugh from the gallery when Mr. Long, who is arguing that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, says:
“Well, I would not argue that this statute is a perfect model of clarity,”
No, he was kidding.
Sounds like she’s suggesting that the constitutionality of the individual mandate pre-empts arguments on the jurisdiction of the tax/penalty provision... and that makes sense: If the mandate is bad, then the penalty clearly cannot stand, and the anti-injunction act applicability is a moot point.
IANAL, but it seems to me that’s where she’s leaning.
Justice Alito to General Verrilli:
“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.
Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”
A very funny exchange at about 41:44
JUSTICE GINSBURG: So — so you — you agree that we would not — if we agree with you about the correct interpretation of the statute, we need not decide the jurisdiction.
GENERAL VERRILLI: There would be no reason to decide the jurisdictional issue.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Don’t you want to know the answer?
(Laughter.)
GENERAL VERRILLI: Justice Kennedy, I think we all want to know the answer to a lot of things in this case.
A very funny exchange at about 41:44
JUSTICE GINSBURG: So — so you — you agree that we would not — if we agree with you about the correct interpretation of the statute, we need not decide the jurisdiction.
GENERAL VERRILLI: There would be no reason to decide the jurisdictional issue.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Don’t you want to know the answer?
(Laughter.)
GENERAL VERRILLI: Justice Kennedy, I think we all want to know the answer to a lot of things in this case.
Hmmm.. This thread should get top billing in ‘Breaking’ and stay there.
Yeah, real funny. Lady Liberty is choking on her own vomit, and SCOTUS is standing around yucking it up.
What’s WORSE is that the conservative Justices don’t want Kagan to recuse either!
Isn’t there a compelling need to address the Constitutionality of 0bamacare IMMEDIATELY due to it’s wide sweeping economic impact, especially if it were to be implemented then deemed unconstitutional? The level of economic devastation and industry restructuring has severe consequences for America; EVERY business and EVERY citizen in the United States.
Statement by Newt Gingrich
“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. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”
Its easy to see which one is Foghorn and which one is Dawg ...
Dictator Baby-Doc Barack has ALWAYS ignored The US Constitution, ESPECIALLY with Obama”care.”
The cancer of Obama”care” now has invaded World Finances as Obama last week choose a “Public health expert” for the World Bank Presidency.
Romney has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”
Senator (R Tn) Son-of-a-Mitch McConnell has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”
_______
The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.
As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.
Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.
Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!
Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.
IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.
To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:
Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.
Obama”care” was 2700 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.
Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”
Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.
Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.
Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.
Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.
Impeach Kagan? Get ready for some ‘cards’ to be thrown at you; anti-Semitic, sexist and homophobic. Isn’t there a card for obese people too? Just look at what 0bama gets away with using just ONE card.
BFL. need to read through the transcripts tonight
“The government has no right to tell you what kind of car to drive, what kind of light bulbs to use, what kind of foods to eat, or what kind of TV to buy.”
Correct, but they are doing it anyway.
More and more.
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
Alito: (I think) ‘You keep saying “the tax”...’ (laughter)
SG: ‘The tax-penalty’
I don't know if this applies, but Tennessee’s TennCare is breaking Tenn.
Right ... who's going to go after her for a violation of federal law? AG Holder? Snowball's chance.
“involuntary servitude”?
Heck yeah!
Tuesday: oral arguments on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate.
The event is already underway (10a-Noon Eastern time): CSPAN will have the audio beginning around 1pm EDT. The interesting part will be seeing how the opposition and the liberal justices attempt to spin their perversion of the Constitution and the verbal cues that are heard as a result.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.