Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 176

Thread: Oral Arguments

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,740

    Re: Oral Arguments



    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    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.
    I was reading in to there question not on the entire case but moreso the AIA. for that to be applicable they would have to agree it's tax, which IMO seemed like at least some of them didn't think it was (Roberts, Alito, Ginsburg, Bryer).

    In your opinion am I right though about is it easier to get the SCOTUS to up hold lower court rulings than it is to overturn it, or is that probably irrelevant when it comes to a case like this?




  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,500

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I was reading in to there question not on the entire case but moreso the AIA. for that to be applicable they would have to agree it's tax, which IMO seemed like at least some of them didn't think it was (Roberts, Alito, Ginsburg, Bryer).

    In your opinion am I right though about is it easier to get the SCOTUS to up hold lower court rulings than it is to overturn it, or is that probably irrelevant when it comes to a case like this?
    It's irrelevant for the most part, especially cases that come from the 9th Circuit. They are the most overturned court of all the circuits.

    The 11th circuit, from which this case emanates, has very few cases come before the SCOTUS.

    But looking at the appeals court as a means of determining it's constitutionality is a crap shoot. Plenty of lawyers go before the SCOTUS and blow it. The solicitor general, if he's not careful, started down that path yesterday.
    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. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,740

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    It's irrelevant for the most part, especially cases that come from the 9th Circuit. They are the most overturned court of all the circuits.

    The 11th circuit, from which this case emanates, has very few cases come before the SCOTUS.

    But looking at the appeals court as a means of determining it's constitutionality is a crap shoot. Plenty of lawyers go before the SCOTUS and blow it. The solicitor general, if he's not careful, started down that path yesterday.
    Thanks.

    One other question, which you may not know.

    Is the case the 11th circuit court ruled on, is that the one that originated from the U.S. District Court of Northern FL (The case where the judge said the whole thing is unconstitutional because the mandate is inseparable?) Just wondering...




  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,500

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Thanks.

    One other question, which you may not know.

    Is the case the 11th circuit court ruled on, is that the one that originated from the U.S. District Court of Northern FL (The case where the judge said the whole thing is unconstitutional because the mandate is inseparable?) Just wondering...
    Yes. Same case.

    Here is a good break down of the case from its beginning up to today:

    http://www.oyeztoday.org/healthcare/#details
    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.




  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    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.
    Too funny that a guy who becomes so enamored with the political folly of Palin, Bachman and Perry et al. would question someone else's ability to think with complexity.

    I'm on the record with a 6-3 uphold of the law. Feel free to put yourself out on the limb.








  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    HR is right in everything he says. No one knows how they vote except the liberals who always vote the party line. We just said that the first day wasn't good for their side based on the questions on tax. That's what their entire argument is based on.

    HR then summed up what we were saying with this:

    ___________________________________
    Plenty of lawyers go before the SCOTUS and blow it. The solicitor general, if he's not careful, started down that path yesterday.
    ________________________________


    Also don't forget Bush v Gore where the court pretty much voted down party lines on both sides, except Souter who voted on Gore's side and they still lost and
    he was put in by H Bush.

    You just never know.




  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    It's a damn shame the court declined a motion from
    Virginia, one of the states that filed the suit to expedite the proceedings. Final decision won't come out til July,
    in the middle of the campaign.

    Also a shame the court didn't televise the rest of the proceedings. Over 75% of the country wanted it as this is the biggest case in history and everyone is so interested but the SC never goes by polls.




  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Too funny that a guy who becomes so enamored with the political folly of Palin, Bachman and Perry et al. would question someone else's ability to think with complexity.

    I'm on the record with a 6-3 uphold of the law. Feel free to put yourself out on the limb.
    Thanks for making my point.

    And didn't you pick Pawlenty?
    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.




  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,740

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Day Two:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...11-398-Tuesday

    The Solicitor General sounds like his sphincter is so tight he couldn't crap out a hair.
    Last edited by NCRAVEN; 03-27-2012 at 01:37 PM.




  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    WOW, JUST WOW!


    The toughest questions continue to come from the swing votes - Roberts and Kennedy - the two I was worried about. Roberts said can you make people buy cell phones-lol. This is what I posted yesterday. We will be forced to buy other things like electric cars and health food. People will be taxed for eating in Mcdonalds.

    Unlike Kagan who makes her views known and not playing his hand like a cool poker player, Kennedy posed some tough questions himself.

    "Can you create commerce to regulate it?" Kennedy asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli. That question addressed a key issue in the case about whether Congress exceeded its regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause.
    Later, Kennedy said the law was unique and felt it was "changing the relationship between the individual and the (federal) government." He acknowledged the Court normally gives Congress the benefit of the doubt on laws that it passes but in this instance there was a "heavy burden of justification" necessary for supporters of ObamaCare to prove its legal worth.

    What's not clear is if the answers provided by Verrilli satisfied Kennedy's apparent doubts.

    The comments and questions from the other justices generally suggested they would fall along familiar ideological divisions.

    "The argument here is that this ... may be necessary, but it's not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers," Justice Antonin Scalia, considered to be on the conservative side of the bench, said at one point. "That it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What is left? If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?"


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1qLZDNl8b


    The SG hasn't been able to answer a lot of questions asked him. Of course, he's an OBY guy just like Kagan is unqualfied never sitting on the bench.

    Yesterday Alito asked if he could mention a precedence which all court decisions are based on and he said no. He got more questions today that he couldn't answer. I can do that much-lol.

    First two days are bad for OBY CARE but it's a long way to go and nobody
    knows.

    As Kenny Rogers said, no when to hold em and know when to fold em and know when to run like hell.

    THE GAMBLER
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-27-2012 at 03:37 PM.




  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,740

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    WOW, JUST WOW!
    Exactly.

    Like HR said to read into the line of questioning as which way they will vote is premature. BUT, it seemed like even Sotomayor was questioning what limits the government will have if the laws the enact are to raise revenue.

    Even if it's not found unconstitutional there are others out there saying the same as I, that it may be more damaging to Obama to have this law than to not. Then we'd have to rely on it being repealed which I won't hold my breath on.




  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    5,056
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Oral Arguments

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?

    GENERAL VERRILLI: That's not what's going on here, Justice Kennedy, and we are not seeking to defend the law on that basis.

    In this case, the -- what is being regulated is the method of financing health, the purchase of health care. That itself is economic activity with substantial effects on interstate commerce. And --

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Any self purchasing? Anything I -- you know if I'm in any market at all, my failure to purchase something in that market subjects me to regulation.

    GENERAL VERRILLI: No. That's not our position at all, Justice Scalia. In the health care market, the health care market is characterized by the fact that aside from the few groups that Congress chose to exempt from the minimum coverage requirement -- those who for religious reasons don't participate, those who are incarcerated, Indian tribes -- virtually everybody else is either in that market or will be in that market, and the distinguishing feature of that is that they cannot, people cannot generally control when they enter that market or what they need when they enter that market.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So there is a market there. To -- in some extent, we all participate in it.

    So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?

    GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Mr. Chief Justice. [We] think that's different. It's -- We -- I don't think we think of that as a market. This is a market.
    .




  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    5,056
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    I'm on the record with a 6-3 uphold of the law. Feel free to put yourself out on the limb.
    5-4 to deem the mandate unconstitutional.




  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,740

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by 4G63 View Post
    5-4 to deem the mandate unconstitutional.
    I could see it go that way. But I could also see it go 4 -5 that the rest of the law is constitutional




  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    5,056
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Oral Arguments

    This is one of Galen's favorite things, a doctored Youtube video.





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