Live Blog: Obama Health Law at the Supreme Court, Day 3

Wall Street Journal ^ | March 28, 2012 | Wall Street Journal Court Reporters

[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.

[Armando Guerra]

It's hard to say from questioning how it is going to go because you never know the outside pressures that will be brought between now and the decision being announced. However, given as it appears now it seems we will have a split decision with the individual mandate going down 6-3 while the whole act goes down 5-4. Then again, after the Chicago politics are applied and a few family members are threatened for kneecapping it may all be upheld 5-4.

[Deo volente]

6-3 with Ginsburg joining the majority??

That would make the liberals’ heads explode!

[hoosiermama]

7-2 Neither of the noobies will not want to be the singular nay vote, but someone will pair up with one of them

[caww]

Since the bill was not read, could not in the time frame be read and was robo signed someone should suggest to the Court that the entire process be ruled unconstitutional.

It doesn't sound like they really want to determine this but send it back to congress. The Judges are giving these guys a run for thier money.....and it doesn't sound like the judges are co-operating with what the "Liberals" were hoping for at all.

[caww]

you never know the outside pressures that will be brought between now and the decision being announced. ... after the Chicago politics are applied and a few family members are threatened for kneecapping it may all be upheld .

Well the arguments the Judges are giving is most interesting....and they aren't giving the Government much wiggle room at all.

However, you are right in what you are saying....though I think the Judges are going to "show" they are not going to bend to Obama.....pay back perhaps?...and they know they have the people behind them.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Gotcha added.

[hoosiermama]

This would be a good time for the BO appointees to show they are independent thinking people. Remember the first time a jurist we all thought were conservative voted contrarily.

[Maverick68]

Trying to get inside the heads of the Supremes is like imagining what an acid-trip is like when you’ve never done drugs...especially the Dyke, the un-wise Latino (sp) and the 98 year old Ginsburg...

[katieanna]

Not Ginsberg. Soto.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

"Unfortunately, we're going to be living under the shadow of Obama (Sotomayor and Kagen appointments) long after he's un-elected this fall."

Which is exactly why I held my nose and voted McCain/Palin and will do similarly this fall.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

"We need to nullify the bill, to see what’s in it."

I can only pay you the highest compliment I can think of: Damn, I wish I'd said that!

[hoosiermama]

Concur. Soto seems very independent and may vote just to show that she is.

[caww]

Thanks....

Love it...they are saying what happens to the Insurance companies? .....needs to be addressed.....and the guy says it’s not the courts to acess the risk. LOL. What a show....I wouldn’t have missed this for nothing!

[dan on the right]

As a matter of law, the lack of severability SHOULD spell the death of the entire statute if they find the mandate is unconstitutional - specifically because Congress did consider the issue and omitted the severability. (I think they did this cynically to challenge a court to go ahead and just try to throw the whole thing out - it worked in a few lower courts!) I find it very hard to see them taking the conservative view that the mandate is unconstitutional, and then ignore the lack of severability (should be an easier call) and retain the rest of the statute.

That is why I still think they will find an explanation to keep the mandate and the whole thing survives.

That does lead to a possible compromise. If the majority think the mandate is unconstitutional, but they lack the will to throw the whole thing out, they fashion a compromise - larger majority (say 6-3 or even 7-2) throw out the mandate (covering everyone butts and avoiding a 5-4 decision) but also agree to keep the rest of the law in place and drop it back on Congress to rectify (forget that that is impossible for now). That would be my second choice. Still think the law stands.

[chuckee]

If Obamacare gets thrown out, it will be a 5-4 decision. There is not one Dem appointed judge on that panel that will overturn any part of Obamacare regardless of the ruse that 1 or 2 of them put up that they have serious reservations about parts of it. I cannot think of one Dem marquee legislation in the past 20 years that has been considered by the SC that a Dem appointed judge ever voted to overturn.

[arichtaxpayer]

OUR CONSTITUTION

[fantail 1952]

Kagan has left herself wide open for impeachment when she sits on this issue. She has a vested interest in the outcome of the ruling of the court, and since she was instrumental in the pro-passage run up to its passage two years ago, demands impeachment since she rightly should have recused herself.

If the Senate changes hands in January, which is a strong likelihood, her impeachment should be one of the first orders of business in the House, then let the chips fall where they may, no matter who is president!

[Pharmboy]

I would think that the parts of the law (or any law) that do not infringe on the Constitution’s laws and provisions would not be part of the court’s purview. But—I am no lawyer and defer to real ones on this.

[hoosiermama]

I’ll bet you think the Gore/Bush vote was 5-4 because that is what the MSM told you. The gore vote was 7-2. My father clerked in the federal court system just out of college. When the court was deciding the Gore/Bush case he wrote the vol/page/para of what law the case would be decided and which jurist would vote which way. He gave the info to a local judge (friend) who opened it in open court the day the decision was announce. Dad was 100% correct.

He says either 7-2 or 6-3 The jurist will hold their positions long past BO, just as those who voted anti Gore and are still on the Court.

[Aria]

He says either 7-2 or 6-3 The jurist will hold their positions long past BO, just as those who voted anti Gore and are still on the Court.

Do you mean they'll vote against Obamacare?