Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

People Are Saying That Obama's Healthcare Law Got Massacred At The Supreme Court Today
Business Insider ^ | March 27, 2012 | Grace Wyler

Posted on 03/27/2012 9:51:02 AM PDT by C19fan

The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating. Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty. According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: Vigilanteman
I still say striking down parts of it but finding a way to punt on most of it is a likely outcome.

The mandate component is the lynchpin for the whole shebang. If it goes, very likely the whole program goes. Obama would then have to find new sources of funding it.

41 posted on 03/27/2012 10:44:18 AM PDT by ScottinVA (A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I read the transcripts from yesterday.

Thing is, there are things going on kind of behind the scenes (or at least cloaked in terminology) that SUGGESTS to me that even if the law passes, it will be one of those things that are actually voluntary.

They specifically mentioned Article III courts yesterday, and that is very, very telling...


42 posted on 03/27/2012 10:47:52 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Toobin added that that the Obama administration's lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General David Verrelli, was unprepared for the attacks against the individual mandate.

Typical performance for a Legal Top Dog selected by an unproven (NO academic credentials that evidence his degrees), affirmative action, white-guilt, black biased poser that is a halfrican Muslim.

43 posted on 03/27/2012 10:49:44 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

This case, unlike most SCOTUS cases, is easy for common folks to understand. Can the federal government force you to buy something, and if so what are the limits to this new federal power? The recent contraceptive mandate helped inform even the Oprah/Jon Stewart crowd.

Liberals on this court will have to literally urinate on the Constitution in order to uphold Obamacare.

Common folks may like the idea of healthcare reform, but not tyranny.


44 posted on 03/27/2012 10:53:17 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

Ya ya.

SCOTUS is not inclined to toss out entire laws, but to instead find any/all contortions needed to preserve the law in question to the greatest extent possible. If they can find _any_ way the “individual mandate” could be construed as legal, they’ll find & implement it.


45 posted on 03/27/2012 10:53:47 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Liberals and Democrats are masters of deception. Kennedy is a left-leaning liberal. While his pre-decision questions are tough there could be at least two reasons he posed this way: 1) he is coaching the defense, and/or 2) he is just feigning ‘due diligence’ in pre-decision interrogation with a subliminal bias toward the government's position.

Regardless, it is somewhat heartening to hear of the Administration's Top Legal Dog getting his ass handed to him by one of his own.

46 posted on 03/27/2012 10:53:56 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

My prediction:

The court will decide the mandate is not enforceable but not unconstitutional. No penalties will be able to be legally collected.

A collective WTF will follow.


47 posted on 03/27/2012 10:54:07 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham
No.

That meeting happened the day of his inauguration, before he was sworn in, IIRC.

CA....

48 posted on 03/27/2012 10:54:37 AM PDT by Chances Are (Seems I've found that silly grin again....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Notice that the Heller case only went so far as to allow minimal possession in the home - not declaring "'right to keep and bear' _means_ 'right to keep and bear'" and eviscerating all "regulations" in question. The court is still mostly the same. If they remove the "individual mandate", expect an "individual mandate"-shaped legal hole will remain - not absence of Obamacare outright.
49 posted on 03/27/2012 11:00:39 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

I think the mandate will get struck down as unconstitutional.

Most Americans, I think, have a very uneasy feeling about the mandate.

Striking it down would signal 2 things:
That in a certain sense, the SC still works for the American people
It would be a message to government to go back to Congress and try to figure out another way of doing things.


50 posted on 03/27/2012 11:03:01 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

I bet all 9 justices read all 2,200 pages of the bill before them. I’m sure they all cross referenced each citation as well.

Following that, I bet they read every brief and position that lawyers have presented for and against.

I’m confident they know what is at stake here.

(sarcasm)


51 posted on 03/27/2012 11:03:37 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Didn’t they get the Pelosi memo about the “ironclad” constitutionality of Obamacare?


52 posted on 03/27/2012 11:16:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albionin

There is a lot to dislike about Obama besides Obamacare — a lack of transparency about his past life, for instance.


53 posted on 03/27/2012 11:21:18 AM PDT by goldi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Do not be mislead by such dialogue. The Court must do this; however, it is no indication of the final decision.


54 posted on 03/27/2012 11:23:28 AM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I have been commenting on these hearings and have heavily cautioned against becoming overconfident.

The real game play of all plays, the real play that determines the winner is severability.

I do not believe the SCOTUS will deny severability outright.

But it would be a beautiful thing if SCOTUS sent the law back to Congress to vote on severability. And I wonder if SCOTUS could send something back to Congress to reconsider, before SCOTUS made a ruling.

Because a revote on severability would be a stake through the malicious heart of Obamacare. The House would vote against severability, so if SCOTUS ruled against say the individual mandate, without implied severability the whole Law would go down and cease to exist.


55 posted on 03/27/2012 11:28:18 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

According to CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”

&&&
And here’s to many, many more.


56 posted on 03/27/2012 11:29:23 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

I would expect an overturned fed mandate would cause obamunists to kick the states into adopting a system of uniform state mandates via federal bullying and federal support ala the old speed limit laws.

IOW states do it or else.


57 posted on 03/27/2012 11:42:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Audio and transcripts of todays arguments are up.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday


58 posted on 03/27/2012 11:46:25 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Audio and transcripts of todays arguments are up.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday


59 posted on 03/27/2012 11:47:21 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Grrrr.... reading the transcripts is gettin me hot!!

Gummint trying to justify it through the commerce clause but they are basically arguing PURE SOCIALISM!!!


60 posted on 03/27/2012 12:01:35 PM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson