Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 176

Thread: Oral Arguments

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Oral Arguments



    Oral arguments started today on Obamacare. Pretty sure they are not going to punt on a ruling.

    Audio if interested:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...=11-398-Monday




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,513

    Re: Oral Arguments

    The Solicitor General made a fool of himself today. He even couldn't get things straight with Kagen, who was trying to help him out.

    It's never good when the justices outright laugh at you ....

    http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/...-supreme-court
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    This title is misleading. I thought he was talking about oral activity under
    the desk in the Ovary Office ala Slick Willie.






    Just like they laughed at the Florida Supreme Court during the Gore re-count after they ignored all the red flags SCOTUS sent them.

    A ruling will be made but I'm scared about Roberts and Kennedy. They've
    often voted for liberal causes.

    It's not the slam dunk conservatives think it is.

    This has me really upset. It's the biggest ruling in history or at least since
    Wade vs Roe. It effects the way we live and how much more we'll pay.

    Abortion effected only certain women, certain pregnant women. This effects everyone.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-26-2012 at 05:11 PM.




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Here's a piece from the conservative Wash Times saying the open minded
    SC may give it a chance.

    The liberals always vote the party line but the conservatives often vote
    for the issue often ignoring the constitution.



    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...dict/?page=all




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Here is a precedent that worries me about Roberts and according to the above,link, Clarence Thomas could be the only conservative to vote vs it. This has far implications on what Roberts might do. OBY only needs 1 vote.

    Note, the mandate to force everyone to get healthcare subject to
    penalties rests with Roberts view here.
    ____________________________________________

    There’s also Roberts's expansive view of congressional power to consider. This was exhibited most recently in U.S. v. Comstock (2010), where he sided with the Court’s liberals and endorsed a sweeping interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause that allowed federal officials to order the indefinite civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” persons who had already finished serving their prison sentences. The Obama administration’s legal defense of the individual mandate rests, in part, on an equally broad reading of that same clause.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    Here's a piece from the conservative Wash Times saying the open minded
    SC may give it a chance.

    The liberals always vote the party line but the conservatives often vote
    for the issue often ignoring the constitution.



    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...dict/?page=all
    I can't really say how anyone will vote, I gotta say, Kagan and Sotomayor seemed like they were trying to help the Solicitor General and the others (especially Kagan) but the other justices that spoke did seem to not agree at all with their stance (especially Bryer).

    I will say, I did like how they clearly identified it's a penalty and not a tax. Now we'll just have to see if they agree it's unconstitutional to penalize someone for not entering into a private contract.


    EDIT: Just finished listening, I can tell you which way Kagan is voting..
    Last edited by NCRAVEN; 03-26-2012 at 05:21 PM.




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    NC - I just caught the last end of the CBS news and it sounded like Roberts was saying - IT'S A LAW, IT'S FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY SOMETHING.

    Am I interpreting this correct to say he is leaning vs it after what I posted above. I was shocked at his comments because he was emphatic. Is this what you heard? Please advise.

    Also at the argument is that if congress can force us to buy insurance they can force us to buy electric cars and health foods only.

    It's going to the end of June and a decision will come out in July, right in
    the middle of the campaign.

    News also said gas prices are going to rise thru out the summer and if O BUMMER CARE is shot down, OBY will lose.

    If he wins he just said he'll be more flamboyant in second term.

    May God have mercy on our souls - except the liberals souls.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Oral Arguments

    This will go easily 6-3 to maybe 7-2 in favor of upholding the law. Four liberal judges will vote in favor while Alito and Thomas will vote against it. I am 80% sure Roberts upholds it and I am more than 50% sure Scalia and Kennedy also uphold it which would be 7-2.








  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    LOL - OBY voted vs Roberts to the SC, one of only 22 that did.

    Now he's begging him to vote for O BUMMER CARE.

    A guy was just on news who plays golf with Roberts. He said he's a
    strickler for the rules of golf from the first tee on implying in this case - the constitution.






  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    As far as Galen's predictions are concerned, they're "homer" as usual and as usual he has no idea what's going on.

    From Hot Air.com


    “Today’s Supreme Court oral argument transcript suggests that many of the justices, including at least three of the liberals, are skeptical of claims that the individual mandate is a tax. This is important not only for today’s argument about the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act (which probably does not apply if the mandate penalty is not a tax), but to tomorrow’s argument about the constitutionality of the mandate. The federal government has argued that the mandate is constitutional because it is an exercise of Congress’ power under the Tax Clause. Lower courts have almost uniformly rejected this constitutional tax argument, and today’s questioning suggests that the Supreme Court is unlikely to accept it either.

    “Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the mandate is not a tax because ‘Congress has nowhere used the word ”tax.” Justice Ginsburg noted that the mandate may not be a tax because it isn’t a ‘revenue-raising measure,’ and because the monetary penalty is separable from the mandate itself. Justice Sotomayor also expressed doubts about whether the mandate is a tax, as did several for the conservative justices. As far as I can tell, none of the justices seemed to support the argument that the mandate is a tax.

    “Thus, today’s events do not bode well for the federal government’s constitutional tax argument.”

    ***




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920
    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    As far as Galen's predictions are concerned, they're "homer" as usual and as usual he has no idea what's going on.

    From Hot Air.com


    “Today’s Supreme Court oral argument transcript suggests that many of the justices, including at least three of the liberals, are skeptical of claims that the individual mandate is a tax. This is important not only for today’s argument about the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act (which probably does not apply if the mandate penalty is not a tax), but to tomorrow’s argument about the constitutionality of the mandate. The federal government has argued that the mandate is constitutional because it is an exercise of Congress’ power under the Tax Clause. Lower courts have almost uniformly rejected this constitutional tax argument, and today’s questioning suggests that the Supreme Court is unlikely to accept it either.

    “Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the mandate is not a tax because ‘Congress has nowhere used the word ”tax.” Justice Ginsburg noted that the mandate may not be a tax because it isn’t a ‘revenue-raising measure,’ and because the monetary penalty is separable from the mandate itself. Justice Sotomayor also expressed doubts about whether the mandate is a tax, as did several for the conservative justices. As far as I can tell, none of the justices seemed to support the argument that the mandate is a tax.

    “Thus, today’s events do not bode well for the federal government’s constitutional tax argument.”

    ***
    It's always seems ironic to me that the only site you ever seem to quote other than rush is "hot air". It's certainly is apropos. Anyway, i'll put some links up later when I get to my laptop. I have followed this closely since its origins and just about every legal scholar (yeah I know "scholar" doesn't bode well for the conservative mind but there is such a thing as being an authority on the subject) conservative or liberal see this as a matter of not a win or loss but a how big of a win for Obama and ACA.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk








  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    NC - I just caught the last end of the CBS news and it sounded like Roberts was saying - IT'S A LAW, IT'S FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY SOMETHING.

    Am I interpreting this correct to say he is leaning vs it after what I posted above. I was shocked at his comments because he was emphatic. Is this what you heard? Please advise.
    I heard that too. I also heard Bryer say. "Why do you keep calling it a tax" and Ginsburg said something to the affect of "a must buy provision".

    Another thing that may bode well is the case that is in front of them is that the mandate is unconstitutional, so they need to only uphold that ruling. If the want to say it is constitutional than they need to overturn the lower court ruling.

    This may be a better topic for someone with more legal knowledge than I, but I believe it's way easier to get the court to uphold rulings than overturn them.




  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Thanks NC. That's what I got too. The first day was a good day for us but you never know. I'm sure those liberals will tow the party line but it didn't sound like it yesterday. EVen they know it's wrong.

    Galen has his facts wrong again and is desperate once again. Now please look above and see where I posted a link from the liberal CBS - the alphabet network - home of Rathergate and Katie Couric's yellow journalism with all their lies but they got it right this time.

    Everything I posted from hot air was in quotes. It is factual info on what
    was actually said. Galen missed it as usual same as his usual homer
    comments.

    I also used ABC on another thread as well as GALEN'S MSNBC. See
    Chaney thread. I've posted numerous threads from the Wash post, NY Times, politico.com, OBYs own web site, CNN, FOX, news busters, freepers, CNS NEWS and Newsmax, WND, Wash Times, LA Times and Wash Examiner the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Jerusalem Post, and the UK's Guardian just to name a few.


    It's no wonder no one listens to Galen.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-27-2012 at 09:41 AM.




  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    NC - This is a great forum over on scout. You'll see Greg and Bert over there
    a lot. They are discussing it.

    The guy to ask your question to would be 12th Raven. He's the constitutional expert over there as well as Greg. J Patrick also knows a lot so you can ask them. You'll see Jon Boy in there too.

    HotBirdz is their equivalent of Galen-lol.


    http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=118&f=1626&t=8849578




  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,513

    Re: Oral Arguments

    I wouldn't get too caught up in the questioning by the Justices.

    If you read the transcript, they were pretty harsh to both sides, as they should be. The laughing was telling, but that line of questioning went to one of the four issues they are arguing. As much as Galen would like to spin this as only one issue being decided, the court is deciding four issues in this case:

    1. Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the power to require individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a tax penalty?

    2. Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program?

    3. Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act?

    4. Is the individual mandate severable from the ACA?

    For anyone to predict anything from the questioning thus far is premature. And I am not shocked that our resident uber Liberal would spin this to a one-topic question when the issue at hand is far more complex for him.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland