SCOTUS Argument on Obamacare Next Wednesday

[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.

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.

An excellent appellate lawyer once told me that appellate work was like a cocktail party, but backwards. You serve the main courses in the brief, and then serve hors d'oeuvres at oral argument.

[CitadelGrad]

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?

It would be if a severability clause had been included in the bill.

[andy7171]

Is this what is meant by judicial activism?

It would be if a severability clause had been included in the bill.

If I remember correctly, it was intentionally left out.

[SuperHornet]

Anyone wanna take odds on SCOTUS declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional, to be immediately followed by a WH announcement that the Administration is moving forward with it anyway?

[CitadelGrad]

It would be if a severability clause had been included in the bill.

If I remember correctly, it was intentionally left out.

If I remember correctly, they didn't even know what the hell was in the bill and what wasn't. Don't you remember Pelosi's quote?

[danefan]

It would be if a severability clause had been included in the bill.

If I remember correctly, it was intentionally left out.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even without an explicit severability clause in a bill, the presumptiuon is that Congress intends for each provision of a law to be evaluated on its own, unless a party can show that Congress would not have passed the bill without the unconstitutional provisions.

I believe that Congress has long operated on both sides of the aisle under this presumption and my understanding is that they generally only include a non-severability clause if they feel it necessary to have the bill stand as a whole.

I don't know what the arguments are currently but I imagine the argument is that Congress would not have passed the Health Care bill without the mandate as the bill lacks any real effectiveness if the mandate isn't in it. I think that's a legit argument.

The question in my mind really is whether the madate is Constitutional. The severability issue is secondary, IMO because without the mandate whatever is left in the bill worth keeping will probably pass as standalones anyway (e.g. 26-year child allowance, pre-existing conditions, etc...).

[Wedgebuster]

Anyone wanna take odds on SCOTUS declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional, to be immediately followed by a WH announcement that the Administration is moving forward with it anyway?

Just curious here SH, where do you get your health insurance from, and how much does it cost?

[SuperHornet]

Anyone wanna take odds on SCOTUS declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional, to be immediately followed by a WH announcement that the Administration is moving forward with it anyway?

Just curious here SH, where do you get your health insurance from, and how much does it cost?

I pay NOTHING for health insurance because I don't have any.

[Skjellyfetti]

I pay NOTHING for health insurance because I don't have any.

You're the fucking problem.


Your opinion on the health care bill... ESPECIALLY the mandate is invalid. You are against it because it would actually force to you contribute to the system instead of just leeching off of everyone else.

[SuperHornet]

How am I leeching the system if I'm receiving no services?

[FargoBison]

How am I leeching the system if I'm receiving no services?

Then you aren't leaching and you aren't a leach until you receive medical care that you can't afford to pay for.

[Gil Dobie]

How am I leeching the system if I'm receiving no services?

Then you aren't leaching and you aren't a leach until you receive medical care that you can't afford to pay for.

I went a few years without insurance when I was younger. Never went to the Dr during that time. Would have paid a stiff penalty or gone to jail under Obamacare, which I would not have been able to afford at that time. Currently I have a great insurance plan, pay reasonable fees and get great service.

[Wedgebuster]

Just curious here SH, where do you get your health insurance from, and how much does it cost?

I pay NOTHING for health insurance because I don't have any.

SNAP!!

[OL FU]

I pay NOTHING for health insurance because I don't have any.

You're the **** problem.


Your opinion on the health care bill... ESPECIALLY the mandate is invalid. You are against it because it would actually force to you contribute to the system instead of just leeching off of everyone else.

Isn't that like saying people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote

[kalm]

You're the **** problem.


Your opinion on the health care bill... ESPECIALLY the mandate is invalid. You are against it because it would actually force to you contribute to the system instead of just leeching off of everyone else.

Isn't that like saying people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote

Why yes. Although I think skelly was using a little satire here.

[YoUDeeMan]

Isn't that like saying people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote

Why yes. Although I think skelly was using a little satire here.

jellybean is not able to process satire.

[BDKJMU]

[youtube][/youtube]

[citdog]

the yankee government COERCING the States that created it and to whom the States turned over a "limited and few" of their powers to is of NO surprise. This was the end result the last time anyone here stood up to Washington City.