Posted on 03/28/2012 8:36:39 AM PDT by katieanna
The Supreme Court on Wednesday is entering the last of its three days of arguments over the Obama health-care law, with justices set to weigh what happens to the rest of the overhaul if the court strikes down the requirement that individuals carry health insurance. We have reporters at the court, who are sending in updates on the action. The morning session started at 10 a.m. ET, and the afternoon session starts at 1 p.m.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Maybe that's the intent....then the Insurance companies would likely merge into huge conglomerates as means of the Government "saving" them.....control of easy then.
Please do ping me for Scotus. Thank you.
We need to nullify the bill, to see what’s in it.
Hearing liberals argue for judicial restraint is like hearing communists argue for free enterprise.
It's a bit worse than just having to go through 2,700 pages. The Act has multiple links to other laws and they in turn have links. Those would have to be analyzed in order to understand the impacts of their interrelationships. The Act also grants authority to multiple departments and agencies to promulgate regulations under it.
It's a mess, and that may be one of the reasons why few in the Congress took the time necessary to read, analyze and understand it.
Act III of Shadows on the Wall. They will rub their chins and ask penetrating questions... just before pulling the rug out from beneath our feet.
Newsies are blaming the government’s attorney for not making a good enough case.
[He may need medical — they are thowing him under the bus.]
Disagree. The individual mandate will be the bone thrown to the public and the rest will be allowed to stand. The national healthcare train left the station two years ago and the New World Orderist will not allow it to be derailed.
It’s the law itself that gives Sebelius almost carte blanche to regulate as she wishes.
If the mandate is declared void but the rest of the law stands and Congress is left to figure it out, what role would they actually play?
Besides the fact that in this divided gov’t the Congress is paralyzed, what would stop Sebelius from simply assuming regulatory power over what to do minus a mandate??
I haven’t heard this discussed.
Read the article linked at post #6 for some Machiavellian thinking.
I don’t agree the rest will be left to stand without the mandate. The conservative Justices are making compelling arguments that that is not even a plausible. It’s not even workable.
Congress’ intent?
It is on record, it is fact, that the Congress had not read the Obamacare bill. They were told they’d have to pass it to find out what was in it.
Therefore, Congress intent was “pass the bill”.
Therefore, the proper response is to “strike the bill”.
I’m not sure if it’s urban legend, but I understand there’s even something in the bill about the gold market. The proper thing is to simply strike it all.
This group - including Roberts, do not have the mental fortitude (aka, testicles) to overturn this legislation. Krauthammer and our favorite Libertarian, Mike Church are exactly right. This Court will do anything, make any argument to uphold this law. They (especially Roberts) don't want to be seen as an activist bench. Those responses from the petitioners were right on point to remind them they don't want to be seen that way.
It is just a continuation of the last 50 years of expansion of the Federal Government. Don't be fooled by the questions; they are just looking for more ammo to cite in their concurring opinions. As I said before, Kagan probably brought the opinion over with her from SG’s office when she took the job.
Compelling to you - never underestimate the mental gymnastics a committed liberal activist and zealot will perform.
I respectfully point out that striking the entire statute IS the correct action from a judicial restraint point of view. Striking only parts and having the Court go through and re-write the legislation is much more a usurpation of the legislative role and having the court substituting its judgment for the (so called)judgment of the (so called) people’s representatives.
But for those interested, I've been posting all the WSJ tweets coming down from their people inside the courtroom beginning at Post 153 and following. If nothing else, it's a quick summary, plus reports from all three days of the proceedings are in there.
From Fox:
"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.
I do believe insanity is galloping amongst that duo.
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.