Posted on 03/29/2012 7:14:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
Weak arguments presented by "team Obama" lawyers supporting Obama's healthcare legislation took a beating yesterday, and the beating continued even more so today.
Please consider Day 3: ObamaCare at the Supreme Court by the Illinois Policy Institute.
Today was the final marathon session of oral arguments over ObamaCare. It began this morning with the question of what to do with the rest of the law if the individual mandate is struck down, a very real possibility after yesterday's hearing.
On this issue, both sides agree that if the mandate falls, at least some of the other provisions must fall with it. Most of the Justices seemed skeptical that the entire law should be thrown out, but where to draw the line was a question the Court was clearly struggling with.
Some of the justices hinted that the difficulty in drawing that line could mean disaster for the whole law. Others noted that the Court has never struck down the heart of a statute but left an empty shell. At one point, Justice Kennedy expressed his concern that it might be worse to pick and choose which parts to strike down than to just overturn the whole law. Justice Scalia joked that forcing the Court to go through the law's thousands of pages and provisions one by one would be cruel and unusual punishment.
The day ended with the question of whether the President can force states to expand their Medicaid programs to millions of new enrollees. As I explained earlier this week, Medicaid expansions have already failed the most vulnerable populations in Illinois, and ObamaCare is only going to make the problem worse.
The four liberal justices appeared highly critical of the state's argument that conditioning pre-existing Medicaid funding on new expansions is too coercive. The conservative justices also expressed some skepticism that the forced expansion was unconstitutional, though they did press the administration to define the outer limits of that power.Justices Ask if Health Law Is Viable Without Mandate
The New York Times reports Justices Ask if Health Law Is Viable Without Mandate.
On the third and final day of Supreme Court arguments over President Obama’s health care overhaul law, several justices on Wednesday indicated a reluctance to pick and choose among the law's other provisions should the requirement that most Americans have health insurance be struck down.
The questions from the justices indicated that at least some of them were considering either striking down just the requirement, often called the individual mandate, or the entire law.
Paul D. Clement, representing 26 states challenging the law, urged the court to overturn the entire law. Edwin S. Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, took a middle ground, suggesting that the court remove the mandate and only a couple of other provisions.
The court separated the day’s arguments into two sessions. After the morning session, which focused on the effect of overturning the mandate, the afternoon's hearing dealt with the law’s expansion of Medicaid, part of its attempt to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance.
In the second argument, the court’s more conservative justices expressed concern that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unduly coercive to states.
“My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of this statute,” Justice Antonin Scalia said, “the statute’s gone.”
Justice Scalia, who suggested that the whole law would have to go, appeared to go further than some of the other justices, but many of them expressed skepticism that the rest of the law could remain intact if the court ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the court’s task, should the key provision fall, a choice between “a wrecking operation” and “a salvage job.” Wrecking Operation or Salvage Job?
There is nothing of merit to salvage in Obamacare. Even if there was, the Supreme Court should not have to read through thousands of pages to find it.
The only things to "salvage" if key provisions are struck down, are Obama's inflated ego and his ability to say he passed healthcare legislation.
Memo to Nancy Pelosi
Hello Nancy: It seems the Supreme Court also does not want to read the bill to find out what's in it.
Sorry Team Obama, your bill was more like "Healthwreck" than "Healthcare".
By the way, I have to ask: If the Supreme court strikes Obamacare, does it strike any provisions of Romneycare that passed in Massachusetts?
It is NOT about health care and it never WAS. But instead it’s an assault on the autonomy of every individual in this country and a full frontal, lethal and insidious assault on our culture as well! PERIOD!
If it passes, it’s the ‘perfect storm’ of ruin for America and Americans
Romneycare is a STATE level insurance, and the US Constitution specifically specifies that any poweres not given to the Federal Gov't, are given to the states.
Romneycare is a manditory insurance, much like other insurances that the states can demand people purchase, like automobile insurance, Flood/Hurricane Insurance or Unemployment insurance. If you drive an automobile, an condition for driving the car is having a minimum level of automobile insurance. Want to build on a Flood plain, or live in a Hurricane zone, then you are required to have the appropriate insurance. Want to run a company - then you must pay for unemployment insurance. These are insurances that only a State can demand that people purchase. However, the states do not demand you purchase them from a single provider - you may purchase them from anyone (execpt unemployment, obviously).
That said, please do not assume that I want/approve of Romneycare - I'm merely stating the facts.
if this is struck down in toto, I predict it will have the side benefit of deterring Congress from passing any more 2700 page catchall bills in the future.
“Hello Nancy: It seems the Supreme Court also does not want to read the bill to find out what’s in it.”
HA. Quote of the day!
Am I the only one around who is troubled at all the gloating? Washington ALWAYS follows Obama and the court just may bow to him...
It’s not over until the ‘fat lady sings’ & none of the “ladies” on the court (fat or skinny) will be singing “our” song. I won’t believe an ‘unconstitutional’ ruling until I read it ..... folks should not be getting their hopes up. My attitude: assume it will be allowed to stand & then if a miracle somehow happens & it is struck down, be surprised and celebrate. In the meanwhile, work HARD to get Obama defeated & all the Dem/RINO henchmen in Congress. I’m also fed up to the max with the so-called ‘conservatives’ in Congress who have no spine, no courage to address the country’s ills including a lawless, treasonous president - they should all be booted out as well.
The potential expansion of government power that is couched in this law is terrifying. It MUST be declared unconstitutional, or our constitution is meaningless, and we the people are utterly powerless.
Our government is on the very brink of complete tyranny, and most of the people (and the media) are just thrilled at the possibility of getting some more free government cheese, no matter that it costs them their freedom.
People are not required to have unemployment insurance.
If employers are defined as people, they pay for unemployment insurance for the contingency of their employees needing it at some point. The comment even says, ***employers*** required to have it, therefore it was people who employ others that was meant.
I have listened to the entire argument twice. If they are getting ready to bow down to Obama then a few Oscar nominations are in order.
You may recall Obama dissing the Supreme Court Justices before Congress and the American public in his annual State of the Union speech a couple of years ago. He doesn't have many admirers among those that sit on the US Supreme Court.
Basically correct but it is not the states that require someone to purchase (Federal) Flood Insurance. Rather it is a requirement of most lenders wanting their collateral be insured against loss.
“It’s not over until the ‘fat lady sings’ & none of the “ladies” on the court (fat or skinny) will be singing “our” song. I won’t believe an ‘unconstitutional’ ruling until I read it ..... folks should not be getting their hopes up. My attitude: assume it will be allowed to stand & then if a miracle somehow happens & it is struck down, be surprised and celebrate. In the meanwhile, work HARD to get Obama defeated & all the Dem/RINO henchmen in Congress.”
I..COULDN’T..AGREE..MORE. I think especially working hard to defeat Obama and all Dems/RINO’s. Even IFFF SCOTUS overturns the law I see nothing from Obama and the Dems that they would just ignore it and keep on implementing the law anyway. They have no regard for the Constitution and any obstacle that prevents them from implementing their plan.
Also if he is re-elected after a POSSIBLE OVERTURN he’ll make sure to lay the groundwork to be more legally solid for another go at nationalized healthcare. We’ve got to work to elect all conservatives no matter the court ruling.
“It’s not over until the ‘fat lady sings’ & none of the “ladies” on the court (fat or skinny) will be singing “our” song. I won’t believe an ‘unconstitutional’ ruling until I read it ..... folks should not be getting their hopes up. My attitude: assume it will be allowed to stand & then if a miracle somehow happens & it is struck down, be surprised and celebrate. In the meanwhile, work HARD to get Obama defeated & all the Dem/RINO henchmen in Congress.”
I..COULDN’T..AGREE..MORE. I think especially working hard to defeat Obama and all Dems/RINO’s. Even IFFF SCOTUS overturns the law I see nothing from Obama and the Dems that they would just ignore it and keep on implementing the law anyway. They have no regard for the Constitution and any obstacle that prevents them from implementing their plan.
Also if he is re-elected after a POSSIBLE OVERTURN he’ll make sure to lay the groundwork to be more legally solid for another go at nationalized healthcare. We’ve got to work to elect all conservatives no matter the court ruling.
“It’s not over until the ‘fat lady sings’ & none of the “ladies” on the court (fat or skinny) will be singing “our” song. I won’t believe an ‘unconstitutional’ ruling until I read it ..... folks should not be getting their hopes up. My attitude: assume it will be allowed to stand & then if a miracle somehow happens & it is struck down, be surprised and celebrate. In the meanwhile, work HARD to get Obama defeated & all the Dem/RINO henchmen in Congress.”
I..COULDN’T..AGREE..MORE. I think especially working hard to defeat Obama and all Dems/RINO’s. Even IFFF SCOTUS overturns the law I see nothing from Obama and the Dems that they would just ignore it and keep on implementing the law anyway. They have no regard for the Constitution and any obstacle that prevents them from implementing their plan.
Also if he is re-elected after a POSSIBLE OVERTURN he’ll make sure to lay the groundwork to be more legally solid for another go at nationalized healthcare. We’ve got to work to elect all conservatives no matter the court ruling.
Unfortunately, the more likely result is that it will just ramp up Democrat efforts to ensure enough voter fraud to guarantee ObaMao's reelection so he can appoint another Kagan to the Supreme Court and rule unimpeded by the formalities of constitutional restraint.
Unemployment is not insurance it’s a tax levied by the state and federal government on employers.
Car insurance is not required unless you want the privilege not right to drive a vehicle.
Don’t know that much about flood insurance but I’d guess you can opt out of it if you don’t want to be covered in case of a flood. I don’t have it.
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.