SCOTUS Argument on Obamacare Next Wednesday

[SuperHornet]

So, is the President toast in November if his pet project goes down in flames? He's invested quite a bit of prestige into this.

[danefan]

So, is the President toast in November if his pet project goes down in flames? He's invested quite a bit of prestige into this.

If someone who actually opposed the law or concept was running against him it might. But with Romney, it won't be an issue.

[Wedgebuster]

Yeah, he and almost all the other republicans were for the mandate before they were against it...

Mitt is down to hiding out far from the deliberations and only wants to talk about how his mandated health care program is better than the Affordable Health Care Act that he now says he wants to repeal.

This Romney guy, he's a real straight shooter!

[Ivytalk]

Yeah, he and almost all the other republicans were for the mandate before they were against it...

Mitt is down to hiding out far from the deliberations and only wants to talk about how his mandated health care program is better than the Affordable Health Care Act that he now says he wants to repeal.

This Romney guy, he's a real straight shooter!

See my new post on the Romney thread. He's a contortionist, all right, but he's my contortionist!

[BDKJMU]

Would it be better for Obama's election chances if the individual mandate was overturned, thereby pretty much gutting Obamacare, thereby motivating his base?

Would it better for Romney's election chances if the mandate was upheld, which would really motivate the conservative base?

Just curious on the psychology of this. Of course I hope the mandate is struck down, even if that would guarantee Obama's reelection.

[CitadelGrad]

It's better for it to be overturned now. If it isn't, I don't think the GOP base will rally behind Romney. They don't believe Romney would do anything to repeal Obamacare. Everyone is aware of the Mass. health care legislation that was signed into law by Romney.

Anyway, based on my reading of several legal blogs, it looks like Kennedy is probably going to be the fifth vote to overturn the individual mandate. There are reports that even Sotomayor was skeptical of the government's arguments. In the end, Sotomayor will vote to allow the mandate, but her critical comments can't give the Obamaniacs a warm and fuzzy feeling.

[FargoBison]

Would it be better for Obama's election chances if the individual mandate was overturned, thereby pretty much gutting Obamacare, thereby motivating his base?

Would it better for Romney's election chances if the mandate was upheld, which would really motivate the conservative base?

Just curious on the psychology of this. Of course I hope the mandate is struck down, even if that would guarantee Obama's reelection.

Considering it is Obama's crowning achievement I think it would be a big blow if overturned. It would rally those among his base who love the law but outside of those people there are a a lot of skeptics.

Honestly even among his base there are some that think it doesn't go far enough, so maybe they want it overturned.

[danefan]

It's better for it to be overturned now. If it isn't, I don't think the GOP base will rally behind Romney. They don't believe Romney would do anything to repeal Obamacare. Everyone is aware of the Mass. health care legislation that was signed into law by Romney.

Anyway, based on my reading of several legal blogs, it looks like Kennedy is probably going to be the fifth vote to overturn the individual mandate. There are reports that even Sotomayor was skeptical of the government's arguments. In the end, Sotomayor will vote to allow the mandate, but her critical comments can't give the Obamaniacs a warm and fuzzy feeling.

I wouldn't hang my hat on questions in oral argument as a basis for how the Justices are going to vote.

[OL FU]

It has been my opinion all along that the healthcare law was passed for two reasons. 1) there was no way a single payer system would pass and 2) the healthcare bill really didn't correct alot of the issues and would eventually strain insurance companies into raising premiums even more thus providing a larger argument for a single payer system.

It seems to me that if the Supreme Court overturns the mandate without overturning the law, the people that support number two above should be happy since premiums will certainly increase exponentially and will create that greater arugument for single payer.

While not a fan of single payer, I think it is probably a better alternative to the current health care law. Health Care is a mess right now because we have such a muddled system of some free market with many government dictates. It really needs to be one or the other. Health care will be rationed by the market or by the government. I may have my preference, but either one of those is better than what we have now.

[Ivytalk]

It's better for it to be overturned now. If it isn't, I don't think the GOP base will rally behind Romney. They don't believe Romney would do anything to repeal Obamacare. Everyone is aware of the Mass. health care legislation that was signed into law by Romney.

Anyway, based on my reading of several legal blogs, it looks like Kennedy is probably going to be the fifth vote to overturn the individual mandate. There are reports that even Sotomayor was skeptical of the government's arguments. In the end, Sotomayor will vote to allow the mandate, but her critical comments can't give the Obamaniacs a warm and fuzzy feeling.

I wouldn't hang my hat on questions in oral argument as a basis for how the Justices are going to vote.

I've experienced that personally -- both ways!

[kalm]

It has been my opinion all along that the healthcare law was passed for two reasons. 1) there was no way a single payer system would pass and 2) the healthcare bill really didn't correct alot of the issues and would eventually strain insurance companies into raising premiums even more thus providing a larger argument for a single payer system.

It seems to me that if the Supreme Court overturns the mandate without overturning the law, the people that support number two above should be happy since premiums will certainly increase exponentially and will create that greater arugument for single payer.

While not a fan of single payer, I think it is probably a better alternative to the current health care law. Health Care is a mess right now because we have such a muddled system of some free market with many government dictates. It really needs to be one or the other. Health care will be rationed by the market or by the government. I may have my preference, but either one of those is better than what we have now.

Good post.

I hope it gets thrown out.

[GannonFan]

It has been my opinion all along that the healthcare law was passed for two reasons. 1) there was no way a single payer system would pass and 2) the healthcare bill really didn't correct alot of the issues and would eventually strain insurance companies into raising premiums even more thus providing a larger argument for a single payer system.

It seems to me that if the Supreme Court overturns the mandate without overturning the law, the people that support number two above should be happy since premiums will certainly increase exponentially and will create that greater arugument for single payer.

While not a fan of single payer, I think it is probably a better alternative to the current health care law. Health Care is a mess right now because we have such a muddled system of some free market with many government dictates. It really needs to be one or the other. Health care will be rationed by the market or by the government. I may have my preference, but either one of those is better than what we have now.

I agree with this too - the future has to be rationing and it's merely a question of how that rationing develops.

I'm for declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional - if we want a tax, call it that and move on. No sense creating some dangerous precedent like that when there's so many other ways to do it. And frankly, that mandate isn't going to be a panacea for the system anyway so why pretend that we need it and open Pandora's box up in the meantime.

[89Hen]

I hope it gets thrown out.

The law or the case?

[kalm]

I hope it gets thrown out.

The law or the case?

The law.

[89Hen]

The law or the case?

The law.

[Bronco]

-
You lie



President Obama stated that he never said he supported a single-payer health care system. But as clearly evidenced by this video, in 2003, he declared: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan."

[youtube][/youtube]



Health Care deals will be covered on C-span
Obama Lies

We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care
Democratic Debate Lies

The Health Care Package will pay for itself
Time
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.


The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.
Campaign and Presidency

His biggest lie
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obama Inaugaration. 20 Jan 2009

[Wedgebuster]

Man it's going to be a great relief when Mitt Romney gets into the White House and all the lies stop....

[CitadelGrad]

It's better for it to be overturned now. If it isn't, I don't think the GOP base will rally behind Romney. They don't believe Romney would do anything to repeal Obamacare. Everyone is aware of the Mass. health care legislation that was signed into law by Romney.

Anyway, based on my reading of several legal blogs, it looks like Kennedy is probably going to be the fifth vote to overturn the individual mandate. There are reports that even Sotomayor was skeptical of the government's arguments. In the end, Sotomayor will vote to allow the mandate, but her critical comments can't give the Obamaniacs a warm and fuzzy feeling.

I wouldn't hang my hat on questions in oral argument as a basis for how the Justices are going to vote.

I would. Not only were the questions pointed, but many of them included quite a bit of commentary.

In the past, when I've actually paid attention to the oral argument phase of a SCOTUS case, I've found that the nature of the questions is a very good indicator of how the justices will vote.

[danefan]

I wouldn't hang my hat on questions in oral argument as a basis for how the Justices are going to vote.

I would. Not only were the questions pointed, but many of them included quite a bit of commentary.

In the past, when I've actually paid attention to the oral argument phase of a SCOTUS case, I've found that the nature of the questions is a very good indicator of how the justices will vote.

Ask anyone who has ever practiced at any appellate level, including SCOTUS, and they will disagree with you.

The tone of questions is not indicative of outcomes.

[CitadelGrad]

I would. Not only were the questions pointed, but many of them included quite a bit of commentary.

In the past, when I've actually paid attention to the oral argument phase of a SCOTUS case, I've found that the nature of the questions is a very good indicator of how the justices will vote.

Ask anyone who has ever practiced at any appellate level, including SCOTUS, and they will disagree with you.

The tone of questions is not indicative of outcomes.

OK I'll take your word for it, but everything I'm reading in the legal blogosphere and the mainstream press is calling this a disaster for the mandate. Many even think it's possible that SCOTUS will go beyond the question of the mandate and strike down Obamacare in its entirety.

[danefan]

Ask anyone who has ever practiced at any appellate level, including SCOTUS, and they will disagree with you.

The tone of questions is not indicative of outcomes.

OK I'll take your word for it, but everything I'm reading in the legal blogosphere and the mainstream press is calling this a disaster for the mandate. Many even think it's possible that SCOTUS will go beyond the question of the mandate and strike down Obamacare in its entirety.

No doubt that is what they are reporting, but they are speculating like everyone else.

I have no clue how SCOTUS is going to come down on this and neither does the media.

We'll all know by mid summer though. I don't really care either way, I just want whatever the decision is to be clear and concise and preferably no split on party-lines.

All of the above are unlikely to happen.

[D1B]

-
You lie



President Obama stated that he never said he supported a single-payer health care system. But as clearly evidenced by this video, in 2003, he declared: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan."

[youtube][/youtube]



Health Care deals will be covered on C-span
Obama Lies

We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care
Democratic Debate Lies

The Health Care Package will pay for itself
Time
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.


The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.
Campaign and Presidency

His biggest lie
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obama Inaugaration. 20 Jan 2009

[JoltinJoe]

I'm going to agree with both.

This Supreme Court is not a group of poker plays. In cases which are likely to divide the two "wings" of the court, the "left" wing of the court and the "right" wing of the court talk to each other, using the attorneys essentially for addressing questions to the other justices.

Also, I would never predict the outcome of the case based on oral argument alone. You certainly need at least to consider the justices' prior decisions and voting record on the issue. In a case like this, involving the commerce clause, which is recognized to operate very broadly, it is very difficult based on prior decisions to guess where each of the justices are going to draw the line on the commerce clause.

[Ivytalk]

I'm going to agree with both.

This Supreme Court is not a group of poker plays. In cases which are likely to divide the two "wings" of the court, the "left" wing of the court and the "right" wing of the court talk to each other, using the attorneys essentially for addressing questions to the other justices.

Also, I would never predict the outcome of the case based on oral argument alone. You certainly need at least to consider the justices' prior decisions and voting record on the issue. In a case like this, involving the commerce clause, which is recognized to operate very broadly, it is very difficult based on prior decisions to guess where each of the justices are going to draw the line on the commerce clause.

Joe nailed it. Also, any appellate judge worth his or her salt will tell you that cases are won or lost on the briefs, not at oral argument.

[kalm]

Ask anyone who has ever practiced at any appellate level, including SCOTUS, and they will disagree with you.

The tone of questions is not indicative of outcomes.

OK I'll take your word for it, but everything I'm reading in the legal blogosphere and the mainstream press is calling this a disaster for the mandate. Many even think it's possible that SCOTUS will go beyond the question of the mandate and strike down Obamacare in its entirety.

Is this what is meant by judicial activism?