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
IIRC, there's already been a small amount (a dollar a week???) started to be taken out to fund abortions as part of ObamaCare.
It ain't much, but it would be pure poetic justice if it made that little ploy moot this early in the game.
Mandating someone buy something is unconstitutional because it takes your rights and choices away, and that’s what Obamacare does. It stifles competition and removes options. Why should the government ban incandescent light bulbs and leave me with the only option of buying those CFL bulbs? 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. And I shouldn’t have to be taxed to help subsidize those items for people who can’t afford them.
You’ve got some good nuggets this morning... awesome. So now Kagan should be impeached for overtly violating this law? (Not holding my breath).
That’s a whole other argument. The fact that the other justices never spoke up is a travesty.
Impeaching Kagan ain’t gonna happen. Our government ain’t got the courage to impeach Obama for more blatant offenses.
Ginsburg mentions if the law is successful no revenue will be collected. Robert suggests the mandate and "penalty" can't be separated else the mandate has no teeth of enforcement.
I look forward to the wrap up from various outlets (or being able to hear the audio for myself if time allows.)
Don’t be too surprised if Kagan votes against Obamacare.
Heavenly Father,
We ask that You would impart Your wisdom to the Court as it weighs the arguments before it over the next few days. Grant each justice a clear understanding of the import of their decision. Let them not be swayed by political rhetoric but be guided only by what is right under the laws of the United States.
We ask these things in Christ’s holy name.
Amen
if you breath air, you must buy government health insurance.
How is this different than slavery?
What about the old Roe V. Wade argument? Women were entitled to right to privacy to kill their babies, but every American has to give their medical records to the government and have the government involved in everyone’s health care decisions?
I know this isn’t the angle they are going after, but seems like and oldie but a goodie.
I’m worried about the penalty / tax for not buying insurance argument. I read an article this weekend pointing out that FDR specifically made SS a tax to get around the commerce clause and that Obamacare modeled it the same way.
You're kidding, right? This is as much her baby as it is for Obama/Pelosi/Reid.
” Lord, hear our prayers. “ -——
Thank you, Jane. The SCOTUS is dealing with something far more insidious than the tecnical arguements before them.
Lord, hear our prayers. God Be With Us. Come, Holy Spirit.
Saint Michael, defend us.
SCOTUS ping list & others on this thread:
C-Span will air audio recordings of today’s arguments at approximately 1:00 PM Eastern.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
— James Madison, the Father of the United State Constitution
_______________________________________________________
Beautiful post, EV!
The law addresses “himself.” Being a democrat, I’m sure she does not believe that any law she disagrees with applies to “her.”
Sure sounds like "involuntary servitude" to me!!!
” That would be prior to any official transcripts produced by the court reporter(s). “ -—
Thank God, BT, for this hopeful statement.
God be with us. The enemy and the Good Angels are in battle in the air at this moment .
You think she doesn’t care about he legacy on the bench more than what she might personally desires?
She will not be able to justify I’m her own mind that ruling in favor of Obamacare removes all restraints in government.
Kagan in recusal would place Thomas in recusal, for a wash.
Reportedly, weeks ago. Sorry, can’t begin to say where I read, heard that.
Thank you, BT.
LET US FAST AND PRAY TODAY, BEGINNING NOW, IF EVER.
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.