Posted on 03/28/2012 10:40:30 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
My colleague Kate Hicks -- who has attended the High Court's oral arguments this week -- will file a full report on today's proceedings later on. In the meantime, some initial reactions indicate that the Supremes may be poised to not only throw out Obamacare's individual mandate, but the entire thing. Wow. Snippets the Wall Street Journal's excellent live blog:
* Justice Kennedy, again exploring the competency theme, says Mr. Kneedler suggests the court has the expertise to invalidate some parts of the law, but not the expertise to judge whether other parts should remain in place. The justice says he finds that "odd."
* Justice Scalia suggests there has never been another high court case where the justices have struck down the “heart” of a law, but left the rest of it in place.
* Chief Justice Roberts suggests that Mr. Kneedler, the government lawyer, has made effectively made the case that if the insurance mandate falls, the guarantee that insurers accept all customers must go, too. But, the chief says, that doesn’t tell the court what to do with all the many other provisions of the law.
* Justice Alito echoes those concerns, saying other provisions in the law, in addition to the guaranteed-coverage requirement, could lead to higher costs for insurers.
CNN's Jeffrey Toobin says Justice Kennedy led this aggressive questioning, indicating that Kennedy has made up his mind that at least the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Via CNN tweets:
Toobin: "The leader of the questioning was Kennedy; it certainly seemed likely he made up his mind the mandate was unconstitutional."
CNN JUST IN: Jeffrey Toobin: "this entire law is in trouble..." the individual mandate appears "doomed"..."seemed a foregone conclusion."
Toobin reiterated his "train wreck" imagery, adding that today could have also been a "plane wreck" ...
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I’d love to hear Scalia, for example, say “We had to strike down the law before we could read it to know what’s in it.”
If you post Kate Hicks’ full report later..kindly ping me..thanks
Maybe that will wake him to the fact that if the whole thing must be struck because by lacking the severability clause the only alternative is minute analysis of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES, that means that to preserve the mandate means likewise minute analysis of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES to ensure the mandate as implemented is, in fact, constitutional.
Would make for an amusing concurring dissent: "I would like to preserve the law as written, but it is so friggin' huge that no sane court could possibly tell if it adheres to superior law and precedent. Obamacare is overturned for reason of sheer incomprehensibility."
All this depends upon the mercurical thinking of Justice Kennedy. We still don’t know how he might rule, he himself may not know, or even have his thoughts sufficiently organized to make up his mind.
In any instance, we shall not know until perhaps June, when the final opinion is handed down.
There is always the tactic of resorting to silent boycott and intransigent responses to any application of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” should the provisions be held, if not Constitutional in the original sense of the term, at not not entirely incompatible with some loose interpretations under the interstate commerce clause.
But wait a minute here - a possible opportunity just passed. The belief is, that the penalties imposed under the provisions of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” are a tax, and therefore cannot be contested until they actually apply. But there is the other interpretation, that these penalties are NOT a tax, but rather like payment of a fine, as for a traffic ticket. Nobody, even in the wildest of interpretations, would term such a fine as a “tax”.
So why does the analogy not apply here?
Massive resistance by NOT paying the imposed penalties. Let them try to collect. Is it still a “tax” then?
Certainly. It is conventional SCOTUS wisdom to say that the oral arguments mean nothing and can often be nothing more than "Kabuki Theatre".
Even if that is true, I am loving this performance! [and it sure beats the alternative]
Paul Clement did an excellent job. Just brilliant.
Why so long?
In comparison,Paul Clement made the Solicitor General look like even MORE of a babbling idiot.
He'll need the Dems to control both houses of Congress to do that. I don't see the House of Reps going back to the Dems in November.
You DID see the [tinfoilhaton] and [tinfoilhatoff] which bracketed my comment, right?
I can only pray that they do, but I won’t hold my breath for it until it happens. Nothing is for certain and this guy’s not counting this chicken until it’s hatched.
Right.
“We have to overturn it to find out what is in it”
(Oh, how I wish Justice Scalia had said that!) :)
You are all dreaming. This is the chance for USG to take over health care.
You may be sure that the supremes are getting strongly coached on; likely threatened.
As soon as USAians allowed/requested USG to provide health care for thermselves, as in Medicare, they were setting up for a calamity. As this beaucracy (inevitably) grew huger and huger, the day would arrive that it started crushing USG budget, which would _force_/enable USG to seize the whole thing.
Let’s face facts, our Chinese debtors are no longer interested in funding USA health care. Nor should they have to.
Both those arguments are incrediblely weak, imo. Ginsburg’s especially can be applied to any market. Breyer’s to food and water. Everyone must consume both.also, those arguments they are making could also be used to expand government into licensing to have children and mandated abortions, imo. Afterall, the birth of a human being affects the healthcare market.
I fully expect either or both Justices Scalia and Thomas to state this in their written opinions (concurring or dissenting).
Is anyone else starting to think we are being played??
And yet, the health insurance market which this law seeks to regulate is specifically NOT interstate. In fact, insurance companies are specifically barred from selling policies across state lines.
and just think, John McCain lost to this two bit, race baiting jackwagon. Haha.
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.