Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 85 to 96 of 176

Thread: Oral Arguments

  1. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,356

    Re: Oral Arguments



    WOW.

    Go to about 38:20 on the audio. How much Kagan is helping the defense is out of control. If she was not a committed ideologue she would have recused herself.




  2. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,356

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    I'm thinking they're all thinking the same thing though which essentially is what needs to be done if the core is canned.
    I agree more or less.

    If you listen to the audio, Kennedy was asking, "what should we do". Bryer was too, but he was also defending certain portions that were good (and I agree some are), leading me to believe he won't severe.
    Last edited by NCRAVEN; 03-28-2012 at 02:50 PM. Reason: clarification




  3. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,194
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Oral Arguments

    This is why Kagan should recuse herself but won't because radicals don't do what's
    right. She assisted in the building of the defense for OBUMMER CARE which is highly
    unusual enough for her to RECUSE it. Here's the law in black and white. Why isn't anyone enforcing it.

    NOTE THE LAST SENTENCE: JUDGES MUST RECUSE THEMSELVES IF THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN A PART, ALBEIT SMALL
    IN THE INVESTIGATION, PREPARATION OR PROSECUTION OF A CASE.


    ________________________________________________
    According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.” In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have “previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.”
    _________________________________________


    She'll vote for all of it.

    Here's some justices that did recuse including one lib - Breyer. From Wiki:

    _________________________________________
    In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have a financial interest. For example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in such firms, while Justice Stephen Breyer has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a Lloyd's of London syndicate. Justices also have declined to participate in cases in which close relatives, such as their children, are lawyers for one of the parties. On occasion, recusal takes place under more unusual circumstances; for example, in two cases, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stepped down from the bench when cases were argued by Arizona attorney James Brosnahan, who had testified against Rehnquist at his confirmation hearing in 1986. Whatever the reason for recusal, the United States Reports will record that the named Justice "took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    _____________________________________________

    http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...-jeff-sessions
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-28-2012 at 03:40 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  4. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,194
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Looks like their minds are made up. Entire law to be struck down - ALL OF IT.

    OBY is prepared to accept some of it but Kennedy and Scalia say it's a package
    deal, all or none if it should be struck down.

    Hell, they didn't even want to read the 2,700 pages.


    ______________________________

    Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

    (Laughter.)

    JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?

    Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

    -


    ____________________________________
    "One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

    Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

    ___________________________

    Damn, and he was the one I was worried about.


    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,2058481.story
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-28-2012 at 06:49 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  5. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Anyone see the typical liberal ad homenim slant James Carville put on a potential overturn?

    "I think that [an overturn] will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party because health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably. I really believe that, this is not spin."

    You know what the Democrats are going to say -- and it is completely justified: 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority. The public has these guys figured out. Our polls show that half think this whole thing is political."

    “They overturned an election. And just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better for me than they overturn this thing 5-4. And then the Republican Party will own this health care system for the foreseeable future. … Go see Scalia when you want health care.”

    http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes...the-democrats/

    Curse the establishment!
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  6. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,194
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Go see O bummer, Pelosi and Reid when you want communism.

    American liberals already have.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  7. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Anyone see the typical liberal ad homenim slant James Carville put on a potential overturn?

    "I think that [an overturn] will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party because health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably. I really believe that, this is not spin."

    You know what the Democrats are going to say -- and it is completely justified: 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority. The public has these guys figured out. Our polls show that half think this whole thing is political."

    “They overturned an election. And just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better for me than they overturn this thing 5-4. And then the Republican Party will own this health care system for the foreseeable future. … Go see Scalia when you want health care.”

    http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes...the-democrats/

    Curse the establishment!
    I have to agree that the GOP will own the healthcare mess if this gets over-ruled which I am still not so sure it will be. These 9 will have to go behind close doors and really discuss the implications of their decision from stripping benefits from those who have already received them to being seen as a bench that put the healthcare system into disarray right after putting the election process into disarray. I don't think Roberts is so keen on having this be his legacy.

    One has to go back to the debates between Obama and McCain when they discussed healthcare. McCain was an ardent supporter of the mandate and Obama in the corner of a public option. In the end, Obama and the Democrat-led congress pass a compromise bill with the Republican mandate. Two years later, a conservative SCOTUS is going to rule 5-4 against it? Just think about that for a moment. There is no way health insurance will ever truly be reformed without increasing the pool. Its either a mandate, public option or single payor. Anything short of that isn't worth the effort. If they scrape the mandate, they have to scrape the whole law. The mandate is essential and without it, it folds like a house of cards.

    I have about half a dozen mid-20 year olds in my practice right now only because of this law and being allowed on their parents plan until 26. They will all lose their insurance not to mention the other millions that are also now covered. Sorry guys, you all lose.

    Oral arguments rarely affect the final decision. They went into this process already knowing their positions. Granted, it was a total shocker to listen to Verilli not handle high school debate team tactics. How embarrasing to have to have the liberal side of the court come to his rescue. What did this guy have a panic attack or something? Anyway, I am not sold on this being overturned just yet. Then again, I have faith in people using logic over ideology, which in the past 3 years there has been little to support that idealism. So Boehner will come up with a new plan? What a fucking joke.

    ht_scotus_beer_pong_tk_120328_wmain.jpg
    Last edited by Galen Sevinne; 03-28-2012 at 11:17 PM.








  8. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Anyone see the typical liberal ad homenim slant James Carville put on a potential overturn?

    "I think that [an overturn] will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party because health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably. I really believe that, this is not spin."

    You know what the Democrats are going to say -- and it is completely justified: 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority. The public has these guys figured out. Our polls show that half think this whole thing is political."

    “They overturned an election. And just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better for me than they overturn this thing 5-4. And then the Republican Party will own this health care system for the foreseeable future. … Go see Scalia when you want health care.”

    http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes...the-democrats/

    Curse the establishment!
    Yeah. Read it last night.

    Part of me agrees with him. Take away Obamacare and there is no GOP rally cry going into November.

    I don't see it as a shift in opinion towards the GOP's favor with healthcare policy though. Boehner can't see his way out of a wet paper bag.

    Although the questioning did look promising, there still is a chance this gets upheld. Oral arguments only account for a small portion of the deliberative process. They still have reams of amicus briefs to read over and consider.
    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. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,356

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Yeah. Read it last night.

    Part of me agrees with him. Take away Obamacare and there is no GOP rally cry going into November.
    I called Rush yesterday on my way to the gym as I heard him talk about Carville, and said I agree with Carville (to an extent) because I do know people who like Obama just disagree with Obamacare. But take a look at the other side of that, if it is declared constitutional, people will be PISSED, it will be 2010 all over again.




  10. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,356

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    I have to agree that the GOP will own the healthcare mess if this gets over-ruled which I am still not so sure it will be. These 9 will have to go behind close doors and really discuss the implications of their decision from stripping benefits from those who have already received them to being seen as a bench that put the healthcare system into disarray right after putting the election process into disarray. I don't think Roberts is so keen on having this be his legacy.
    You may be right about that, if the court does it's job, it will only think about the constitutionality of this and not how they will be viewed. If they do think about how they will be viewed in the public eye, then they would deem it unconstitutional since the overwhelming majority see it that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    One has to go back to the debates between Obama and McCain when they discussed healthcare. McCain was an ardent supporter of the mandate and Obama in the corner of a public option. In the end, Obama and the Democrat-led congress pass a compromise bill with the Republican mandate. Two years later, a conservative SCOTUS is going to rule 5-4 against it? Just think about that for a moment. There is no way health insurance will ever truly be reformed without increasing the pool. Its either a mandate, public option or single payor. Anything short of that isn't worth the effort. If they scrape the mandate, they have to scrape the whole law. The mandate is essential and without it, it folds like a house of cards.
    Comprise? with whom? there wasn't a single republican vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    I have about half a dozen mid-20 year olds in my practice right now only because of this law and being allowed on their parents plan until 26. They will all lose their insurance not to mention the other millions that are also now covered. Sorry guys, you all lose.
    While that will suck, what the hell ever happened to being personally responsible? I mean I had my own health insurance starting when I was 20. Why can't people go out and get their own if they need it. Or, G, you could lower your rate for these people

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Oral arguments rarely affect the final decision. They went into this process already knowing their positions. Granted, it was a total shocker to listen to Verilli not handle high school debate team tactics. How embarrasing to have to have the liberal side of the court come to his rescue. What did this guy have a panic attack or something? Anyway, I am not sold on this being overturned just yet. Then again, I have faith in people using logic over ideology, which in the past 3 years there has been little to support that idealism.
    So you do expect it to be overturned?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    So Boehner will come up with a new plan? What a fucking joke.
    Stop joking, this guy has no balls, someone could come up with some reforms but not him.




  11. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,194
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Yeah. Read it last night.

    Part of me agrees with him. Take away Obamacare and there is no GOP rally cry going into November.
    Also, while Kennedy grilled the SG, in the end he left an opening that it is a
    unique case so he could still vote for it but how can anyone vote for something
    when they didn't even read it. They don't know what's in it other than the
    mandate. Only a few if any of the congressmen read the 2,700 pages. Kennedy
    seemed emphatic about not reading it but as HR always says, you never know.

    Here's a scenario that OBY sabatoged this entire case before the supremes for
    reasons mentioned above. GOP doesn't have anything to galvanize its base
    vs. The boogie man is gone. OBY can win and then appoint some more justices
    to his favor.

    Also, why was he in favor of pushing for the case to be heard now and a decision soon instead of after the election. If he loses before the election, it's disastrous or is it. Again, nothing for GOPs to be angry about and the conservatives stay
    home again because Romney is a liberal and a Mormon.


    As I said for months, he was worried about losing before the SC so maybe in the end he wanted to lose it while looking at the really big picture. He's ahead of Romney in the polls now from anywhere between
    a couple to double digit points. With gas prices trippling since he came to
    office, with 15M people still unemployed and another 15M working part time,
    he is ahead of Romney in the worse economy in 80 years. Nothing he has
    done has worked but he's still ahead. He has nothing to lose by sabatoging
    his own master piece. OBY is a genius in winning an election.


    That said, as pointed out on TV, this court has always voted for GOP in the
    critical cases like Bush v Gore but not so critical ones.

    It's interesting to note when Souter retired he knew this was coming up and
    ensured that the GOPs would still be in majority if he left and the ones on
    the bench said they would be even though he voted for Gore and Ws father
    appointed him to the bench.

    So who knows. Check out these scenarios.


    http://genehoyas.com/does-obama-want...e-struck-down/
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-29-2012 at 08:17 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  12. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    what the hell ever happened to being personally responsible?
    Uhhh...that would be the intention of the mandate and the primary reason conservatives came up with the idea. Once Obama adopted the responsibility-enforcing mandate, it became liberty-stripping big government. Nice spin job by the GOP so now we will go back to people not having insurance but continuing to use the health system at your and my cost. But hey, at least Rush will be happy.


    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk








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