Oral Arguments

**AirFlacco** · 03-27-2012, 11:44 AM

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.

**AirFlacco** · 03-27-2012, 11:47 AM

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.

**HoustonRaven** · 03-27-2012, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

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** · 03-27-2012, 12:28 PM

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** · 03-27-2012, 02:22 PM

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** · 03-27-2012, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

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.

**4G63** · 03-27-2012, 03:20 PM

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.

.

**4G63** · 03-27-2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

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.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-27-2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by 4G63

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

**4G63** · 03-27-2012, 03:38 PM

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

**AirFlacco** · 03-27-2012, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I could see it go that way. But I could also see it go 4 -5 that the rest of the law is constitutional

I posted a long time ago that they could just strike out the penalty part and leave the rest in but the question Kennedy asked about the commerce clause attacks the entire law. Kennedy even said it creates a new relationship between the gov't and the citizen, ie, too much illegal gov't which is what
we've been saying.

On the surface, Roberts and Kennedy just dont like it but again, you
never know.

LOL - Galen won't like that vid especially the part he says their lawyer
being so bad. Definitely a doctored tape he'll say.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-27-2012, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

I posted a long time ago that they could just strike out the penalty part and leave the rest in but the question Kennedy asked about the commerce clause attacks the entire law. Kennedy even said it creates a new relationship between the gov't and the citizen, ie, too much illegal gov't which is what
we've been saying.

On the surface, Roberts and Kennedy just dont like it but again, you
never know.

LOL - Galen won't like that vid especially the part he says their lawyer
being so bad. Definitely a doctored tape he'll say.

And I bet this is the brief he got it from.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads...tion_FILED.pdf

**AirFlacco** · 03-27-2012, 11:30 PM

The Supreme Court disaster. If it upholds the law it will be in spite of the SG's performance. Ginsberg had to bail him out and interrupted him explaining why Americans won't be forced to buy brocolli to which Verili gratefully, said, yes that's it. He had to explain to the court that passing the law won't leave the gov't with unlimited powers which he couldn't do so Ginsberg did it for him.

______________________________________
"I thought what was unique about this is it's not my choice whether I want to buy a product to keep me healthy, but the cost that I am forcing on other people if I don't buy the product sooner rather than later," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Verrilli responded gratefully: "That is—and that is definitely a difference that distinguishes this market and justifies this as a regulation."
________________________________________

Justice Samuel Alito asked the same question later. "Could you just—before you move on, could you express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can?" Verrilli turned to precedent again. "It's very much like Wickard in that respect, it's very much like Raich in that respect," Verrilli said, pointing to two previous Supreme Court opinions liberals have held up to defend the individual mandate. Where the lawyers challenging the mandate invoked the Federalist Papers and the framers of the Constitution, Verrilli offered jargon and political talking points. If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli's performance, not because of it.
____________________________________________

This is worse than Galen laughing at Sara Palin confusing Africa as a continent. This is a more educated lawyer who appeared before
the SC 17 times although he lost most recently when he tried to argue that lethal injection of gas into two death row inmates was
cruel and inhumane tortue. Hopefully, his losing streak continues.

Anyone who thought Scalia would vote for it better think again. The first two days have been a train wreck for OBY CARE.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/...court-disaster

**AirFlacco** · 03-28-2012, 12:18 AM

On the flip side, Roberts and Kennedy grilled the opposing attys as well. These justices are by far the most liberal of the GOP justices appointed by Reagan and Bush. We got stuck with Kennedy when Congress rejected Borke's appointment by Reagan by a 9-5 vote. DEMs confirmed Kennedy knowing he wasn't as conservative. Note Reagan's remark in link. Many senators of various political persuasion seem to like Judge Kennedy.
Translated: he's a f*cking liberal.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/12/us...ted=all&src=pm

The liberal Bush appointed the liberal Roberts to the bench. Liberals should
be kissing W's feet right now or we wouldn't be discussing this.

__________________________________________

Roberts and Kennedy were also piercing in their questions to the two lawyers challenging the individual mandate about the government's contention that Congress is validly regulating people who already are in the market because virtually everyone is going to need healthcare at some point.

"That's my concern in the case," Kennedy said, noting that young, uninsured people affect the overall market by not paying into it and ultimately receiving care over the long term.

In a similar vein, Roberts said at one point that the healthcare market could be viewed as different from that for cars or other products because everybody is in it.

**AirFlacco** · 03-28-2012, 12:31 AM

oops.

double post.

**AirFlacco** · 03-28-2012, 12:43 AM

The left is freaking out especially CNN and politico.com, OBYs own website.
Even Rush is shocked and says he was wrong. See comments about old Wolfie freaking out on CNN.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...t_developments

To be fair. From OBYs politico:

http://www.politico.com/

From cnn.

Individual Mandate Divides Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justic...are/index.html

IT IS NOT YOUR FREE CHOICE TO STAY OUT OF THE MARKET FOR LIFE.

JUSTICE GINSBURG.

GINSBURG AND TODAY'S LIBERALS ARE THE COMMIES OF 1916.

**HoustonRaven** · 03-28-2012, 07:23 AM

Again, far too early to read into the questioning by the Justices.

They are deciding legal questions, not policy questions. Four legal questions in fact.

So when someone says that Obamacare will be struck down / upheld, the next question should be "which part?".

**NCRAVEN** · 03-28-2012, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Again, far too early to read into the questioning by the Justices.

They are deciding legal questions, not policy questions. Four legal questions in fact.

So when someone says that Obamacare will be struck down / upheld, the next question should be "which part?".

I was surprised by the media (even though I shouldn't be) rushing to the cameras to say, "it's going to be struck down". They grilled the opposing side too, albeit not as hard, or as many justices but they still did.

**The Fanatic** · 03-28-2012, 07:57 AM

Somebody please explain to me how the government intends on "making" people buy health insurance.

I personally don't get it.

How the hell do you make somebody buy something they can't afford if that's their economic difficulty in todays economic environment?

And how the hell do you make them pay a fine for not buying health insurance if they don't have the money to pay the fine?

Am I missing something here?

**NCRAVEN** · 03-28-2012, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by The Fanatic

Somebody please explain to me how the government intends on "making" people buy health insurance.

I personally don't get it.

How the hell do you make somebody buy something they can't afford if that's their economic difficulty in todays economic environment?

And how the hell do you make them pay a fine for not buying health insurance if they don't have the money to pay the fine?

Am I missing something here?

They say the penalty is to encourage people to buy health insurance. If you don't have the money you get a waiver (so to speak).

The funny thing is they act like someone who isn't going to get insurance is more likely to pay a $695 penalty than they are a $3,000 policy....