[RIghtwardHo]

BEWARE reading ANYTHING into questions by the Justices. I’ve argued before SCOTUS, the VA Sup Ct and several appellate courts and questions don’t mean a whole lot. In fact, Justices will frequently ask questions the opposite of what they are inclined to do to force you to make their argument.

Judicial questions are for one purpose ... to spur discussion. Many times a Judge would grill me on an issue as though he didn’t buy it only to rule in my favor.

Anyone who tells you they can read the tea leaves on this one, or that there are even tea leaves to read, have know idea about what they speak.

All we can do is sit back and wait.

[Centaur]

You are so right. I argued before an appellate court once and my opponent was torn apart by the Justices. When it was my turn to argue, they smugly told me I need not say a word. When the decision came down, it was in his favor. We both were stunned.

[what's up]

Yes, you could be right.

What gives me hope, however, is that when the grilling came the guy could not give logical answers.

If the Justices were trying to help him make his argument thru the questions it didn't seem to be happening.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Are you a famous attorney? Impressive to hear you have argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Thanks for your unique insights into what’s going on.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You have made an important point. It’s always good to read an opinion grounded in years of experience.

[monocle]

Ask a liberal: If the government can force you to buy health insurance, can the government force you to buy a firearm?

[djf]

I read the transcripts from yesterday and today and they keep going back to one major issue:

If Congress can regulate commerce by doing this, then they can literally do anything at all.

That throws the idea of a federal government of limited, enumerated powers out the window.

[kidd]

One characteristic of this set of nine justices is that they tend to make narrowly defined decisions, especially with hot topics like this one.

Justice Kennedy’s questions seem to support the idea that he is trying to form a narrow decision.

The bigger question of “can the government mandate individuals to make purchases” will not be answered by this court.

Look for this court to refine what is a tax and what isn’t a tax, and perhaps a refinement of interstate commerce applicability.

I predict it’ll be thrown out, 6-3 (Ginsburg and Kennedy joining the conservative four). It’ll be thrown out on the basis that it cannot be a tax because (by definition) it cannot generate revenue, and a penalty cannot be used to regulate interstate commerce. Supporting arguments will include such items as: other means of addressing medical costs (such as a direct tax) were not persued.

[Hostage]

I completely agree with you.

Please read this post and say what you think:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2863884/posts?page=26#26

[plenipotentiary]

Old old story. The judge says the words one way, but then decides the other way.

[the invisib1e hand]

forgive me for repeating myself but: what if the mandates were just a ruse to push the case to the scotus? so what if the idiot mandates get tossed? The Act itself is implicitly declared "constitutional" if it survives.

Beware commies squealing in harmony.

That would certainly explain all the fake noise coming out of the Archdiocese of NY about it: It's all been theater.

[chris_bdba]

The suspect is awful.I sure hope that they can see the subversion of our constitution that this bill contains and reject the whole thing.

[American Constitutionalist]

At times it seems the wheels of justice grind slowly, and your advise is the best advise, to sit and wait.... and don’t get the judge mad at you.

[stpio]

It isn’t going well when the Court breaks out in laughter
at the Government’s (Obama’s lawyer’s) argument.

[xzins]

Thanks for the info, RWH.

If, though, the questions they ask cannot be answered or are answered very poorly, surely that means something.

“Why not broccoli?”

It's good for you. It's business. Go buy enough for B a day. What's different about that?

Well, yer honor, broccoli is green and an insurance policy is in the red....what...do I look like a grocer?

[Upstate NY Guy]

I’ve argued before SCOTUS, the VA Sup Ct and several appellate courts and questions don’t mean a whole lot. In fact, Justices will frequently ask questions the opposite of what they are inclined to do to force you to make their argument...

Thanks for your insight and participation at Free Republic.

[VRW Conspirator]

I’ve argued before SCOTUS, the VA Sup Ct and several appellate courts ...All we can do is sit back and wait.

RIghtwardHo, Thank you for your input. I have two serious, yet humorous, questions. Based on the assertion that Obamacare is constitutional, can a legislated and signed law compel ALL federal justices to wear orange jumpsuits, or better, striped tunics, like prisonors wear?

Second, why not legislate a law that all able bodied and minded adults HAVE to purchase a handgun?

[1010RD]

I’ve had a judge try to teach the opposing side what arguments they should use. They ignored him and continued to misargue the case. They blew it over and over and over again. The judge in his ruling pointed this out to them and then ruled against me.

[spacejunkie2001]

When’s the ruling due?

[luvie]

Thank you for your insight. There are so many innuendos and theories and stories about this that it’s nice to hear some common sense with actual experience to back it up.

[NonValueAdded]

Is this but half the story? What is the likelihood that should they strike down the individual mandate they deem that clause to be separable? Will that even be part of the oral arguments?