Posted on 03/28/2012 9:44:18 AM PDT by Bill Buckner
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
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.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox43.com ...
>> “No, we need to clean house in Congress next.” <<
.
A M E N !
.
It’s a witch’s brew.
Visiting any Leftist protest tells you who’s brewing what they’re drinking..
Surely you jest.
The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.
” JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? [banning cruel and unusual punishment] You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? “
Best line of the hearings, so far.
Anyone know whose Constitution she was reading when she said this?
Isn't Ginsburg the one who thinks she's a 'citizen of the world' rather than merely the United States? And that entitles her to look the world over to find what might agree with HER. HER the Goddess of all wisdom?
That the decision will be 5-4 for or against the individual mandate looks like a sure thing.
Much has been written about Kennedy and the conservative side of the court.
However, from the liberal side, Justice Stephen Breyer appeared to see the mandate and the market from a completely different point of view. Breyer at one point suggested that everyone automatically becomes a participant in the heatlh-care market as soon as they’re born. Because no human being can escape illness, Breyer said, everyone will at some point require medical services; this includes those who cannot pay or those who lack insurance.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who embraced the same vision of the health-care market, argued that a person’s refusal to buy health insurance is actually a choice to pass on potential health-care costs, and “they’re making the rest of us pay for it.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan appeared on board with their fellow Democratic appointees.
Kennedy in particular seemed to soften near the end of the hearing, acknowledging the problem of the millions who are uninsured and pondering out loud about how the government could address that.
So, no reason to celebrate yet.... it could go the other way.
Kabuki.
Don’t forget the DEMs changing the locks on the committee room so the GOP could not participate in healthcare discussions ...
Ironically enough, single payer, if passed in a straightforward way, would likely survive SCOTUS. It’s all the smoke and mirrors and attempts to deceive people which are about to catch-up to them.
” Don’t forget the DEMs changing the locks on the committee room so the GOP could not participate in healthcare discussions ...”
Is this true? I never heard this anywhere before.
"JUSTICE SCALIA: Is there any dictionary that gives that
-MR. FARR: I'm sorry, Justice Scalia?
JUSTICE SCALIA: -- that definition of "essential"? It's very imaginative. Just give me one dictionary.
MR. FARR: Well, but I think my point, Justice Scalia, is that they are not using it in the true dictionary sense.
JUSTICE SCALIA: How do we know that? When people speak, I assume they are speaking English.
-------------------------
Ohime, Giudice Scalia. Che un bigotta! Congresso hai sempre in bocca l'italiana. Non e ver? Si, Congresso scrive la legge in italiana. O in keniota!
[Alas, Judge Scalia. What a bigot! Congress always speaks Italian. Isn't it true? Yes, Congress wrote the law in Italian. Or in Kenyan!]
Justice Ginsburg arguing for “restraint”? That’s a new one!
“Breyer at one point suggested that everyone automatically becomes a participant in the heatlh-care market as soon as they’re born. Because no human being can escape illness, Breyer said, everyone will at some point require medical services; this includes those who cannot pay or those who lack insurance.”
Same goes for food, water, transportation (whether driving, walking, riding), furniture (we all need to sit, lay down, put stuff on tables), and a whole host of other things.
I agree that that would be the perception, but this Law was cobbled together by Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid with very little input from Obama.
Despite Kennedy’s seeming warming to the mandate at the end, he never got an answer to what he and several other Justices repeatedly asked: “Where is the Limitation?” The govt. never answered the question because there it cannot. If the mandate stands, enumerated powers of the govt. is destroyed completely. There is no way around that. Kennedy knows it as he continued to asked the question, which of course, was never answered.
Hey, I didn’t say they would, but it’s what
they NEED to do.
It’s past time they were held responsible for
their actions.
“Despite Kennedy’s seeming warming to the mandate at the end, he never got an answer to what he and several other Justices repeatedly asked: “Where is the Limitation?” The govt. never answered the question because there it cannot. If the mandate stands, enumerated powers of the govt. is destroyed completely. There is no way around that. Kennedy knows it as he continued to asked the question, which of course, was never answered.”
This could be the key. Kennedy might think himself smart enough to see the limit but believe his successors would go beyond his self-imposed limit.
Lucy and the football.....
I like the way that sounds.
Hey Free Republic got mentioned on the gatewaypundit,
The Supreme Court Justices are poised to throw out the entire Obamacare law.
FOX 43 reported, via Free Republic:
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.
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.
Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.
I know, and I often wish we could retrieve the word liberal, as in “liberal democracy,” but like what happens to lots of words that get caught up in changing events, liberal will never mean what it originally meant, regarding Rule of Law, individualism, liberty and self-governance. It has been replaced by “conservatism.” But you are right, the leftist judges are radicals.
With all due respect, Justice Breyer, that might be the case if this court did not tolerate the practice of partial birth abortions, and situations where a baby is born and left to die without any medical care - those babies don't become a participant. Unless you wish to classify corpse disposal as "healthcare". [Reason 756 why In Maryland would never be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar]
And, by the way, Justice Breyer, there are citizens of this great country who choose to live a simple life, living off the land, and using traditional natural remedies to treat illness. Is this court now proposing they should be forced to pay a penalty for exercising an entirely legal means of pursuing happiness? [Reason 757 why In Maryland would never be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar]
I’m with you!
If I'm not mistaken, I believe today's session was based on the premise, "so, if we do find the mandate Unconstitutional, what does that do to the rest of the law?"
That is, all of the questions implied the overturn of the mandate because that was the nature of the premise they were examining. It doesn't mean that anyone has actually committed to making that finding in the first place.
Especially given that there is no severability clause. The marxists who wrote the bill/law were so "smart" that they didn't include a severability clause. Tough luck.
Personally, I think we’re screwed. I’ll be happy to be surprised, but I don’t expect to be.
Obama: “We need 5 more years...
------------------
One thing that became cyrstal clear during these 3 days of arguments is that the individual mandate is another ponzi scheme - the government will shift the cost of older people's healthcare on younger workers, and when those younger workers get old, we'll shift their costs to even younger workers.
Does that call to mind any other government program? Hum, let me think ...
Sadly, I doubt most people under 30 knows what communism is, or the resultant genocide as a result of its practice.
I was very surprised this never came up in oral arguments, because it is my recollection that at one point the bill DID contain a severability clause and it was REMOVED before final passage, a strong argument that the lack of a severability clause was not an oversight, but an intentional decision by Congress!
I SO hope PPACA is overturned entirely.
BUT, I have a contrarian question. If EMTALA is constitutional - if Congress has the power to require all hospitals to treat all emergencies and women in labor for free - then isn’t it implied that Congress can come up with a scheme to pay for that?
LOL! Good one.
He has been given the title of the “Swinging” judge for good reason.
I think its possible we are being played to get our hopes up or something.
Exactly.
Gummint is trying to call it “commerce”, but they are really talkin socialism.
I would like to get something into the record and read before a joint session of Congress ON JULY 4TH, about "THE PEOPLE" who took the President and Congress to task and got this overturned....signed by millions of "AMERICANS".
This ruling will not prevent a single payer system. They will have to do it with a single tax that applies to everyone of course and then everyone is covered. Or expand Medicare to everyone of every age.
Those things would probably not be considered unconstitutional.
Of course - they have the power to levy equitable taxes and pay for any constitutional program they like from the general treasury.
A major portion of this whole charade has been a game to pretend that somehow 40 million ininsured can magically be included in the health system for "free". There is nothing I know of that would prevent Congress from levying a 5% excise tax on hospital bills to pay for the uninsured. But then, the public might notice.
Not if the Pubbies have half a brain and make it clear the whole purpose of this act was to take money out of the pockets of young people who do not financially benefit from comprehensive care. Convince the under 40 crowd that this is Social Security Part II, which it essentially is, and they will stay home in droves. Congress as Robin Hood, only they are planning to steal from the young to give to the old.
I think the use of the word “salvage” was perhaps, unintentionally revealing of the Justice’s belief that a majority may well exist to invalidate the mandate. I may be wrong, but of course we are all straining to simply read the tea leaves as they fall...
Exactly. Add in the fact we don’t know just how happy they are to have Kagan involved in whats a clear case for recusal.
That can’t be going over too well.
Pray that they strike it down.
When the rulings come down we’ll hopefully win out and get to hear the dissent opinion. I would love to see something along the lines of what she said in print. There must be a way of removing a SC judge who quite clearly does not know his or her job.
While Kennedy is the “swing vote,” he’s been voting more conservative recently.
Man, you nailed em!
LOL
LoL.
And we could get a bonus that the Supreme Court overturns 1942 Wickard v. Filburn.
It is pretty apparent to everyone that the hard left justices like Kagan are trying to make the case for Obamacare rather than talk about it’s constitutionality. Kagan is practically coaching Verilli?
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.