Posted on 03/27/2012 12:02:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
While you never know how things are going to turn out, the Supreme Court Justices played their expected roles in today’s hearing on the constitutionality of the individual health care mandate.
By the end of the morning session, it appeared clear that the liberals on the Court are, as expected, far more inclined to buy the government’s argument that creation of the mandate is within the powers of Congress while the more conservative Justices have some real problems with the notion.
At least that would be one’s conclusion if you base such a determination on the questions posed by the Justices.
The onslaught of questioning and arguments, directed at U.S. Solicitor General Donald Vermilli Jr., came quick and hard when Justice Anthony Kennedy, widely viewed as the ‘swing’ vote that could turn the Court’s decision in one direction or another, asked Vermilli if upholding the law would mean that the government could require the purchase of certain food—yes, the broccoli argument. That line of questioning was continued by various other conservative Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, who wondered if upholding the constitutionality of the mandate would give rise to the government being permitted to require all Americans to purchase cell phones to better facilitate the fire and emergency services operations.
While the questioning by the conservatives on the Court went hard on the government’s counsel, it was considerably more pleasant for Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the state challengers to the individual mandate.
According to SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein, who has been providing updates from the Supreme Court,
Based on the questions posed to Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the state challengers to the individual mandate, it appears that the mandate is in trouble.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Let it be so.
Broccoli Stumps Health Mandate
From what I heard from yesterdays hearing even Breyer was laughting at the arguments presented by the Obama people.
0bamacare assumes health care is a right and everyone is entitled to it. A CLEAR distinction must be made by SCOTUS as to 'health care'; There's the actual administering of health care, versus the PAYMENT FOR health care. While, as a nation grounded in Christian ethic I could see that every American has a right to assume his fellow man would try to save his life, under no circumstances should Americans assume their fellow man should PAY FOR THAT CARE.
I've not heard anyone yet separate 'health care' in this fashion, but I believe it's critical to answering the question of 'privilege vs. right'.
"AFFORDABLE" ANYTHING is not a RIGHT!
Wake the heck up, SCOTUS!
The justices have hit the nail on the head when asking what other things the government could compel citizens to do. Back when this abomination was conceived, I had decided the reason Uhbamuh so much wanted this plan was that its implementation would pave the way for other areas of our economy to be in effect nationalized. If the people are willing to give in on something so personal as their own healthcare, why would they have a problem with nationalizing oil companies, forcing increased payments into social security, and other intrusive laws that would not be of the same personal feel as healthcare.
Won’t raise my hopes as of yet however. The questioning may be tough, but in the end, Kennedy could end up deciding the law is troubling but no unconstitutional.
It means nothing and just gives cover to the pusillanimity of the judiciary
.
I think you are correct. Those justices took Barry’s SOTU dressing-down very personally, and they seem intent on cramming one right up his backside.
the liberals are a given but the five conservatives could go either way, and no one on the left even questions this absurd set of circumstances.
That fact alone should make every American very afraid.
If I were a conservative, and I am, I wouldn’t get my hopes up. Here is a take that has not been mentioned yet.
From what I understand the Justices don’t dicsuss the case after they’ve heard arguments. They go back to their chambers and write their opinions and vote. That’s not a rule, that is simply how the process has evolved. Hoeweverm, they are indeed free to query one another and conversate with one another. There is no prohibition against lobbying another Jusice.
Keeping that in mind, now remember this, that obama has put two women on that court and he picked them becasue they are as radical as he is.
I believe that Sotomayer is just as much as an radical activist with a “union thug gene” firmly implanted in her genome just like obama.
I believe that Sotomayer will try to sway other Justices behind closed doors. I believe that she will be in touch with the obama adminstration giving them a blow by blow on how the decision is coming along. She is a mole and a double agent for obama and against the US people.
I even believe that if the opinion doesn’t go her way that she may try to fiddle with the acutal text in order to achieve her end.
Look at her track record if you don’t believe that sotomayer is capable of that. She is a non apologetic racist who will have her way and do anything to get her way.
Sotomayer is key, someone must keep an eye on her and keep her in check. (Kind of reminds me of John Carpenters “The Thing” with Kirt Russel)
“I believe it’s critical to answering the question of ‘privilege vs. right’.”
No, it isn’t. All you need to know to distinguish between rights and privileges is whether something belongs to you and cannot be taken away, or it has to be given to you through a claim on someone else. The former is a right, the latter a privilege. Easy-peasy.
“Keeping that in mind, now remember this, that obama has put two women on that court and he picked them becasue they are as radical as he is”
Yeah, but the justices they replaced would’ve voted Obama’s way anyway, so moot point. Kagan should recuse herself as having helped craft the legislation, but that’s another point altogether.
A wonderful word. No doubt exercised while searching for a penumbra or two to justify something.
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.