[alancarp]

All of these tweets are via:
@janetadamy #supremecourt
They are in chronological order: Michael Carvin, also speaking against the mandate is up:

@JessBravin: Clement finished, Michael Carvin stepped up for the challengers to the law.
@JessBravin: Breyer asked if nation was faced with disease epidemic, could it require Americans to get inoculated? Carvin: no.
@JessBravin: Kennedy wavered over claim that line could be drawn between those engaged in commerce and those outside market
@JessBravin: Kennedy: Younger, healthier people law seeks put in risk pool “uniquely proximate’ to affecting insurance rates.
@JessBravin: Carvin said if young and healthy needed insurance, it would be catastrophic care, not comprehensive ACA plans
@JessBravin: Carvin said cost-shifting problem wasn’t caused by uninsured, but rather people who default on medical bills
@JessBravin: Verrilli seized on plaintiffs’ remark that gov could require those seeking care to buy point-of-sale insurance.

>> Personal Comment: Oh, I hope that’s wrong... why would our side say anything like that???
@JessBravin: The argument ended moments after the clock struck noon. See you tomorrow, Chief Justice Roberts said

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

@JessBravin: Verrilli seized on plaintiffs’ remark that gov could require those seeking care to buy point-of-sale insurance.

That is a dangerous concession, if that is accurate. "The govt." would have to decide what is included in "minimum coverage." But which govt.? State or federal? Does this send the arguments back to Constitutional limits on congress?