This generation's Roe v. Wade, Brown vs. Board---Supreme Court moves on Obamacare.

CNN's Toobin is reporting that the law is in "grave danger" based on the questions and statements that were made today by Kennedy.

 

As opposed to the all the stories about the people being thrown out of houses because they can't pay for health coverage now?

Anyway such a scenario won't happen till at least year after the ruling comes from this case and from my understanding is that those who can't afford health insurance will be able to apply for expanded Medicare.

 

I am not sure how much can be read from Kennedy's question as he frequently plays devil's advocate in his questions.

 

That is great, while we are at it, let's get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. That should really help the government budget as well.

 

Good info. Sounds like I'd like him.

I'm conflicted on this. I don't think the bill is good in that I don't think it tackles things the right way. I'm also personally against a federal mandate (though I do not object to a state mandate). However, I'm fearful that is this bill gets struck down there will be no action taken going forward.

 

Looks like both him and Roberts (the other hope from the left) were pretty aggressive on questioning the gov't, and the government lawyer did a fairly bad job all around. On the flipside, at the very end, supposedly Kennedy said some things that indicated more openness to keeping it. So it's hard to say at this point - sadly, I guess we won't know anything more for 3 months.

 

I thought the argument was that the hearing should be delayed because the Feds haven't technically levied the tax on anyone just yet, there was no grounds for argument in the first place at this present time. The state then argued that the healthcare law was not a tax so the feds argument of delaying the case has no grounds.

I dunno, we may be saying the same thing...

 

Exactly. There is nothing to talk about here. /thread

 

The statute in question there was only applicable for things that are actually called a "tax". So in terms of that question, it wasn't a tax because the statute never calls it a tax.

But in the argument as to whether the government has authority under its taxing power, the tax in question doesn't have to be called a tax to be part of the goverment's power - it just has to work that way (which it does). So the arguments were basically two separate issues and didn't really overlap.

We might still be saying the same thing - not really sure.

 

That argument wasn't made by the Obama administration. It was made by a lawyer that was appointed by the court to specifically make the argument. The Obama administration argued that the mandate's penalty functions like a licensing fee which has also been ruled as legal under the government's taxing authority but doesn't qualify under the anti-injunction act.

 

Really? Did Nunzio get on the horn and let you know what is going on behind closed doors?

 

Would not be surprised... as this, like most past courts, will break down party lines.....

Having said that, in the past they have surprised.

 

I am in your camp as well....

 

Me 3. This country needs Universal Healthcare. I think this bill is garbage but baby steps need to happen.

 

Yeah, it has the makings of an historic case. I think Citizens United is the other big one of this day.

 

I thought it was expanded Medicaid.

Ironically enough, part of the financing for Obamacare is going to come from cuts in Medicare.

 

Interestingly, there are rumblings that CU may be revisited as well, thanks to Montana. The underlying argument under CU was that independent expenditures aren't corrupting so they should be legal. But Montana had a long history of extreme corruption and instituted their own campaign finance limits, and it eliminated the corruption.

The Montana Courts upheld the limits as legal because they addressed corruption, and the Supreme Court now took up that case. It will be interesting to see if they use it to revisit the original decision, especially now that we've seen the chaos its caused in the GOP primaries - and the fact that both parties are frustrated/annoyed by it.

 

Well, technically, freedom is about having the right to screw yourself over. Freedom is about choosing to tell people to go F themselves when they try to help you.

 

Kennedy on the Klock.

Argument recap: It is Kennedy’s call (FINAL UPDATE 3:14 pm)
Analysis

If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.

If the vote had been taken after Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., stepped back from the lectern after the first 56 minutes, and the audience stood up for a mid-argument stretch, the chances were that the most significant feature of the Affordable Care Act would have perished in Kennedy’s concern that it just might alter the fundamental relationship between the American people and their government. But after two arguments by lawyers for the challengers — forceful and creative though they were — at least doubt had set in. and expecting the demise of the mandate seemed decidedly premature.


The Justices will cast their first votes on the mandate’s constitutionality later this week, and there are perhaps three months of deliberations that would then follow. Much will be said and written within the Court in private during that time, and that obviously could affect the ultimate outcome. The argument on Tuesday pointed the Justices in opposite directions – the first hour against the mandate, the second hour cautiously in its favor. Curiously, that was just the opposite of what the lawyers were seeking out of their side of the hearing.

 

Yep, a bunch of commies. Virtually all of them were WWII vets who got their degrees under the GI Bill.