Oral Arguments

[NCRAVEN]

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

[HoustonRaven]

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

[AirFlacco]

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

:ww:




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.

[AirFlacco]

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

[AirFlacco]

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.

[NCRAVEN]

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..

[AirFlacco]

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.

[Galen Sevinne]

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

[HoustonRaven]

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?

[NCRAVEN]

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.

[AirFlacco]

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

[NCRAVEN]

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.