Posted on 03/28/2012 10:03:53 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
In Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General and chief ObamaCare advocate Donald Verrilli was presented with a substantial portion of his own posterior by Justice Antonin Scalia.
The summary execution began when Verrilli made the extraordinary mistake of schooling the Court on the proper meaning of its own decisions.
“No it didn’t,” said Scalia to the stunned Solicitor General in reference to his errant references to the significance of previous cases.
And what followed was a merciless barrage of facts exposing the overreach of the individual mandate, ObamaCare’s method of creating “fairness in healthcare” by making those who do not want to purchase insurance buy it anyway or suffer a penalty.
When US District Judge Roger Vinson found ObamaCare unconstitutional in 2011 he wrote simply “If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce…it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power,’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.” (1)
And Scalia not only repeated Vinson’s skepticism of Congress’ immediate use of the commerce clause power, he drove directly to the heart of Verrilli’s contention that the federal government has the absolute authority to impose the individual mandate because it is “necessary and proper” to the success of ObamaCare itself.
“In addition to being necessary, it has to be proper,” said Scalia of the federal government’s unprecedented decision to force unwilling participants into the insurance market and fine...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
they should go after Kagan for not recusing herself...so what if she doesnt get tossed by the Senate, The House needs to do their job.
Rush Limbaugh said the justices are not going to read all 2700 pages of the bill to determine what to leave in it and what to take out. It will either pass or fail in its totality.
“I can’t believe that ‘not proper’ is the strongest criticism that an intelligent adult (in the business of the LAW) could come up with!!”
His job is not to use words that are inflammatory, his job is to interpret the US Constitution. The term, “necessary and proper” is what’s in the Constitution, and he’s merely pointing out clearly that this law fails to meet constitutional muster: it “may be necessary, but it’s not proper”. It was precisely the correct way to phrase the observation.
If the quote is accurate Scalia refered to the current administration as “the regime” Is that an accurate quote? It speaks volumes about what he thinks about the current administration.
“And the judge continued, saying although ObamaCare’s individual mandate might be “necessary” to the success of the Regime’s healthcare scheme as a whole, “…it’s not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers.” (2) “
Screw Obamacare!
The word “proper” wasn’t merely snatched out of thin air.
The Solicitor General brought up the Necessary and Proper Clause as relevant in addition to the Interstate Commerce Clause, as support for this mandate.
Scalia said it might be necessary to the scheme of the whole law, but that didn’t make it proper.
Proper in this case means constitutionally correct, rather than proper as in do you drink from your tea cup with your pinkie finger held straight, or crooked.
Context is everything.
There is nothing weak about Scalia’s replies to the Gov’t lawyer.
This is why, in my experience, Liberals tend to make poor software developers: they tend to not “get” little things like “and” conditions.
I don’t think that is correct. I am not sure, but I think companies are penalized for having employees under Obamacare. That is why there were so many wavers this year.
Companies would have had to have massive layoffs or go out of business. I guess they could also get rid of sponsored healthcare.
Who really knows with 2,000 page confusing monster hanging over us. Businesses are terrified.
2800 pages, but who read it anyway....
Apparently Ken Cuccinelli's staff did...
But...but...ObamaCare sounded so good in their echo chambers!
From your keyboard to God’s iPhone
But, are the justices barred from opinion altogether? Can't they weigh in unreservedly and bring all THEIR judgment and understanding of the law to bear in the most articulate way possible?
Where is it written that they may not express an educated and informed statement apart from the exact language of the constitution?
I’m inclined to think it would be 6-3 or 7-2 to strike, at which point Kagan would find since her vote is irrelevant, recuse herself and end up with a 6-2 or 6-1 to strike.
Stranger things have happened... I nay have it bass-ackwards!!
Let’s all hope so, but you realize that Kennedy will be subjected to relentless pressure. I only hope that he isn’t a denizen of the DC social/political scene.
The 2700 pages of the healthcare law are just the framework for the tens of thousands of pages of regulations, current and future. Much of the law defers to the discretion of the HHS Secretary. Sebelius will continue to issue directives, law or no law. If that fails, there are always Executive Orders. This will be a long- term battle.
Lol, hopefully off to the junkyard!
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.