Supreme Court hears Obamacare case today: What issues will they rule upon?

[Little-Acorn]

Limbaugh just reiterated a lot of this on his show, remarking on how the Justices were not letting the leftists get away with their usual doublethink - switching their arguments one way or the other and trusting that their audience will fail to remember that what they are saying today, contradicts what they said yesterday.

The most surprising thing about the questions from the Justices, is that conservative AND LIBERAL justices alike, are doing it. Alito and Roberts asked a number of questions about penalties vs. taxes on Monday... but so did Breyer and Sotomayor!

There may be hope yet.

See complete transcripts of the Oral Arguments from Monday, at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...477_Page2.html

There are many pages.

[Little-Acorn]

DAY 2:

Sounds like the justices who normally uphold the Constitution, are directing their questions that way on Tuesday as Oral Arguments focus on the mandate.

Predictably, some of the leftist justices are trying to worm their way out of it. But their arguments seem to be that (in their opinion) striking down Obamacare may be bad for the country; NOT whether striking down Obamacare would be required by the Supreme Law of the Land.

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74525.html

Conservative justices skeptical of individual mandate

by CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN and JOSH GERSTEIN
3/27/12 11:07 AM EDT Updated: 3/27/12 12:44 PM EDT

Conservative justices attacked the central provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law Tuesday, expressing deep skepticism that the government can force Americans to buy insurance.

On the second day of oral arguments, the Supreme Court grappled with the linchpin of the legislation — the individual mandate.

Critics of the law argue that if the U.S. government can require Americans to buy medical insurance, it could require virtually anything else that might improve health or lower health care costs, like forcing Americans to join a gym or buy broccoli.

A potential swing vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, turned to that point early in Tuesday’s session, asking Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. if the government could require purchase of certain food.

“Here the government is saying the federal government has a duty to tell citizens it must act,” Kennedy said, and that changes the relationship between the government and the person “in a fundamental way.”

Verrilli was also asked if the government could require the purchase of cellular phones or burial insurance.

Chief Justice John Roberts argued that if the court says Congress can regulate anything people buy just because of how they pay for it, “all bets are off.”

Today it is health insurance, he said, and then “something else in the next case.”

“Once we accept the principle, I don’t see why Congress’s power is limited,” Roberts said.

The aggressive questioning from conservative justices led Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog and a prominent Supreme Court litigator, to declare that “there is no fifth vote yet” for the mandate.

“The individual mandate is in trouble—significant trouble,” he said. “The conservatives all express skepticism, some significant.”

During the early questioning, at least three of of the liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, challenged the conservative wing.

Ginsburg argued that forcing people to buy food is different than requiring them to purchase insurance, citing a friend-of-the-court briefing that uncompensated care leads to higher costs for all consumers. Uninsured people are passing their costs on to others, and that’s why Congress can regulate them, Ginsburg suggested.

At stake in Tuesday’s arguments is not just the individual mandate but the potential resolution to a bitter political fight between Democrats and Republicans over the limits of government power when it comes to health care.

[Kathianne]

Predicting the outcome of SCOTUS is not a sure fire game. However it looks like Stevens may go with the conservatives, which leaves Roberts. I don't see Roberts enlarging the federal government this much.

I doubt that they will know out the whole enchilada, but if they get rid of the forced to buy clause, it pretty much implodes.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justic...are/index.html

...However, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the federal government "is telling an individual he has the obligation he must act" and purchase insurance.


"That threatens to change the relationship between the government and the individual in a profound way," Kennedy said.


If Congress could regulate health care in the name of commerce, added Chief Justice John Roberts, "all bets are off" on a range of areas subject to federal oversight.


To Toobin, the court's four liberal justices -- Ginsburg, Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer -- were clearly supportive of the law's constitutionality, while conservative justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia appeared certain to rule against the law.


With Justice Clarence Thomas also considered certain to vote on the conservative side, the issue would be decided by the remaining votes of Kennedy and Roberts, Toobin said.


Kennedy, who is considered the swing vote on the divided court, asked tough questions about the mandate and appeared likely to oppose its constitutionality, Toobin said, meaning that the usually conservative Roberts may be the best hope of liberals for the law to be upheld...

[Little-Acorn]

Predicting the outcome of SCOTUS is not a sure fire game. However it looks like Stevens may go with the conservatives, which leaves Roberts. I don't see Roberts enlarging the federal government this much.

Some quotes from Chief Justice Roberts on the subject:

Chief Justice John Roberts argued that if the court says Congress can regulate anything people buy just because of how they pay for it, “all bets are off.”

Today it is health insurance, he said, and then “something else in the next case.”

“Once we accept the principle, I don’t see why Congress’s power is limited,” Roberts said.

Yes, predicting the outcome of a court case is VERY chancy. I am particularly poor at it myself.

But this doesn't sound to me like Roberts is too enamored of the idea of Congress having this much power.

[Kathianne]

Some quotes from Chief Justice Roberts on the subject:



Yes, predicting the outcome of a court case is VERY chancy. I am particularly poor at it myself.

But this doesn't sound to me like Roberts is too enamored of the idea of Congress having this much power.

Yep, sounds like we read him the same way.

Stevens sounds quite against the mandate which is good news.

[Anton Chigurh]

If they were smart they could kick this can down the road - don't give any ruling on it yet. Send it back to the lower court. The reasons I say this are twofold: 1.) Right now there has been no penalty, or tax, collected. Therefore it is open in my mind if the constitution has been violated in reality yet. 2.) There is yet to be anyone forced or coerced to buy anything. Therefore it is open in my mind how this would affect the opinions of the members. They very well might find themselves having to uphold this law given the circumstances. The plaintiffs can show no damages at this point. They should wait until after the election, because if it is a GOP sweep of the WH and the Senate, and if the GOP maintains its majority in the House which I think it will, this is all a quite moot point anyway because Obamacare will be immediately repealed.

[Little-Acorn]

Here are transcripts from the Oral Aguments on Tuesday, Day 2:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html

Check out the pages around Pages 68 thru 76 and its neighbors. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor are definitely doing the jobs they were appointed to do. On these pages, they go far beyond the usual asking questions. They are instructing Obama's lawyers on what arguments to use, to win their points and enable a vote upholding Obamacare.

I wish, back when I was in school and taking tests, that I had had the class professor standing by my side and telling me how to answer the problems in the test.

[Kathianne]

Here are transcripts from the Oral Aguments on Tuesday, Day 2:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html

Check out the pages around Pages 68 thru 76 and its neighbors. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor are definitely doing the jobs they were appointed to do. On these pages, they go far beyond the usual asking questions. They are instructing Obama's lawyers on what arguments to use, to win their points and enable a vote upholding Obamacare.

I wish, back when I was in school and taking tests, that I had had the class professor standing by my side and telling me how to answer the problems in the test.

I don't think this will help, the 'Act' has serious issues. While the hints may help justify the liberal wing's take on things, seems likely that parts of this Act will be declared unconstitutional.

[Little-Acorn]

Is it November yet?

[fj1200]

Here are transcripts from the Oral Aguments on Tuesday, Day 2:

24 MR. CLEMENT: ...

5 The question that's a proper question for

6 this Court, though, is whether or not, for the first
7 time ever in our history, Congress also has the power to
8 compel people into commerce, because, it turns out, that
9 would be a very efficient things for purposes of

10 Congress' optimal regulation of that market.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1qMXZqhHV

I also don't like the assumption that because someone is not in the HC insurance market that they are automatically a burden to the rest of society via the insurance companies. Someone could exist just fine with no insurance but accessing medical care when necessary by writing a check. They also assume the entitlement of HC by just showing up. It is only an entitlement that Congress optimal regulation, , has already brought about.

[SassyLady]

Thank you LA for keeping us up-to-date on this. Your summaries are excellent.