E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFor the most part, bloggers agreed that Day 2 of the Supreme Court's oral arguments over the federal health-care law represented -- at the very least -- a setback for the Obama administration.
SCOTUS Blog's Lyle Denniston, a reporter who has covered the Supreme Court for 50 years, wrote:
“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.
Left-leaning Steve Benen, a writer for the Rachel Maddow blog, says “court watchers look to these arguments for hints, but there are no guarantees that justices who appeared to be leaning in one direction or another will necessarily rule that way.” He notes that a few reporters, who heard the Supreme Court hearing, agreed on some points:
“* The mandate has at least four votes (Ginsburg, Breyer*, Sotomayor, and Kagan).
* Solicitor General Don Verrilli, who argued the case for the government, was not at the top of his game today, and the word "choke" is being bandied about quite a bit.
* Paul Clement, the former Solicitor General who argued against the health care, was excellent.
* The two votes to watch are Roberts and Kennedy. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito do not appear to be in play, despite all of Scalia's previous opinions on Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
* The liberal justices were far more effective than Verrilli in making compelling arguments in defense of the law.”
Adam Serwer, a reporter at Mother Jones, called the second day of orals hearings a “disaster.
“Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.
Stepping up to the podium, Verrilli stammered as he began his argument. He coughed, he cleared his throat, he took a drink of water. And that was before he even finished the first part of his argument. Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism's biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy...
If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli's performance, not because of it.”
Right-leaning Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post sums it up: “To put it bluntly, it was a rotten day for Obamacare, but more importantly, also for the left, which tends to assume that legislation it likes must be constitutional.
“In perhaps the most telling moment, Kennedy said that allowing Congress to compel purchase of health care “changes the relationship between the individual and the government in a very fundamental way.” That, in a nutshell, is the challengers’ argument.”
Leave a Comment:
I vote we stop paying for the Supreme Court Justices' health insurance. There is nothing in the constitution that says we have to pay for their care. Let them buy their own insurance. Who's with me?
I am.
Amy, there's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to pay for anyone's health insurance.
Let everyone buy their own if they want it!
Looks like poor Obama's signature legislation is going down.
Didn't the boy wonder teach constitutional law???
HOW EMBARRASSING!!!!!
Chris: I bet you would want treatment at the hospital if you became sick whether you have health insurance or not. Or are you saying, you would happily pay every penny out of your own pocket if you or a member of your family became unexpectedly ill?
Guess what Chris... if you got treatment and couldn't afford to pay the bill, its the tax payers that have to fork out the money for you. Tell me, is that fair?
Unlike auto insurance, where you only need to buy it if you own a car, medical treatment is going to be a necessity for anyone that lives a few years. You may not want to have health insurance but I want you to have it so that my insurance premiums don't go up just because of you.
Not embarrassing at all. He didn't write the legislation. You're the one who should be embarrassed. And if you had any more sense you would be.
If similar legislation had been overturned in the past then, yes, it would be embarrassing.
The opponents seem to forget, however, in the absence of previous case law, it is going to be written here. A constitutional law professor has no basis upon which to know that the individual mandate is going to be overturned if there is no precedent.
Jack, He might not have written it but he had a whole lot of input in it and he was the force behind it. If it is over turned it is President Obama that will be embarrassed. He never actually killed OBL but you lefties sure like to give him credit for it. He wasn't responsible for pulling the troops out of Iraq (President Bush was) but he and the left sure want to take credit for it (remember he wanted to leave a few thousand in Iraq but the Iraqi government said no).
Yeah, I would if I was sick, Rambo, but I'D PAY FOR IT MYSELF!!!! That's what a good, responsible citizen does. Why is that so hard for you people to understand???
i think that all federal compensation and benefits should be reduced by at least 20%. The President promised that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars but so far that is not happening. The administration is estimating that the 2012 federal deficit will be at least 5 times greater than what the President promised. With more then 15 trillion dollars of current debt I estimate that any borrowed now is going to end up costing the federal tax payers 9 times the amount borrowed to repay over the next 170 years. With the deficits that we have been running it will not be long before servicing the debt will consume all of our tax dollars, forcing the federal government to declare bankruptcy. There is no one to bail us out. Bankrupting the federal government is definitely a threat to our national security.
As Obamacare goes, so goes the Massachusetts law upon which Obamacare was based. If Obama is embarrassed, then so too is Romney.
Portions of this were originally Republican ideas. So are Republicans accepting the part of the blame and embarrassment that they are due?
sfcret, if you are going to credtit Bush for Obama's accomplishments, then you must also credit Bush for the recession, high gas prices and unemployment.
fielden,
I disagree with your state re Mass. healthcare. The Mass. law is a states-rights bill, not a portion of the Federal law.
There is a separation of state vs. fed here. This was articulated in the oral arguments - suggest you read the entire argument available on the internet.
It looks like Ms. Kagan should not be voting on this legislation at all ... a serious conflict of interest.
Fielden - I do blame Bush and congress for the recession (remember it started in 2007) and unemployment went up on Bush's watch and continued to climb under Obama. But Obama's polices have not done much to improve things overall. Unemployment still higher than when Obama took over. Gas prices have risen, almost double, since Obama took over (but then Obama and the left say a President can't control gas prices, but they blamed Bush in 2008).
How can you say removing troops from Iraq was an Obama accomplishment when it was done under an agreement between the Bush administration and Iraqi government?
Chris, I just got a bill for $590.00, for visit to a First Care when I was shaky last weekend, and didn't know what was wrong - turns out low blood sugar, not a heart attack. Thank God I have employer provided insurance - what if I didn't? How would I pay that bill? Maybe I'd stick you with it :)
If that's the case, then I'm sure you would agree Thomas & Alito should of recused themselves as well...
Of course, Chris is aware that if he does get insurance through his employer that he is paying for their health care as well as his, yes?
Wow, dude, you must work with a bunch of deadbeats!
jim,
Chief Justice Roberts said he did not see just cause for
any of the Justices to recuse themselves.
Speculation is a fun activity.... bloggers have weighed in today , so you all think the SCOTUS should just say tomorrow afternoon. Well the bloggers have spoken and if they are right, nothing more for us to do???
Sorry folks, everyone will have to wait for June for the final say of the court.
Anyone who expects that this court would rule in favor of the President is deluding themselves.
@Amy...
I'm with ya'. Let them buy or not buy their own medical coverage!
...and since this is all based on BlogBuzz, maybe what we're all opining will reach some level of consideration. Sure!
Hey, by the way, Chris, you are aware of what the going rates are for hospitalization in this country, yes? Inpatient stays are expensive. Got a couple of thousand bucks for a couple of days?
(Psst, if you're not insured now would be a good time to put down the cheeseburger!)
Is that because you don't trust the court's ideology or because a poor argument was made today or because you never liked this law in the first place?
Da Noid - post 1.22 - BINGO!! The law never sat well with me. The way it was rushed through without bipartisan support... the speed to enact it before Scott Brown took away the filibuster proof senate... Not letting the American public know what was in it... hell, congress didn't know what was in it and the democrats approved it. It has been a sham since day one.
Yeah, Noid, I know how expensive it is. That's why I take care of myself so I don't have to go to the hospital. It's such a simple concept. You should try it sometime.
Amy, glad to see you're okay. You need more Chocodiles in your diet. And as for paying the bill, that's pretty simple. You can always work out a payment plan with the doctor, hospital, or insurance company. I did it myself two years ago and it was very easy. My payments were a low $80 a month for ten months. It can be done.
That pesky constitution is always getting in the presidents way, no wonder he hates it so much!
The real issue with private health insurance and why we need manadatory insurance is the gaming of the system that takes place now. EVERY hospital charges more if you have insurance. If you are paying individually, they charge less. A tylenol should not cost $50 if insured and $10 if not insured, but only $0.79 if you buy it at Walgreens.
The for profit (or for executives) private insurance industry is not where we should be. Standardized coverage and predetermined rates of payment are the only way we will be able to reduce the ever escalating health care costs.
At least President Obama is trying to help the people of this country with Health Care, What kind of Care do the Republicans offer...."WE Don't Care."
That's not true. If you have the bucks, they care about you deeply.
So long as you are willing to give some of them to their SuperPacs for reelection.
Aaaahhhhh ! Let the liberal Circle Jerk begin ...............................
Aaaaahhhh... yesss... our pivot man, little Jimmy has arrived!
And the liberals speak out against the republicans. Hey liberals, how many republicans voted for the ACA? How much republican input was allowed in the bill? Very little. Didn't Obama himself tell the republicans to go to the back of the bus? Now that's da man!!! And you liberals wonder why republicans want to make Obama a 1 term president. Couldn't have anything to do with the way he treated them, eh?
Obama's wealth share mandate should be shot down by the court. If it isn't, I should be able to pick a couple of dozen Democrats as dependents for my taxes this year.
Sorry Brian....another EPIC FAIL post...
...you've become...SPANKY!
Too soon to tell. If the mandate goes down, it is a reproof to the Republicans who pushed it when the Clintons were trying to come up with HCR. So funny, the Republicans were for it before they were against it.
President Obama should announce that he is now against HCR and he hopes the Supreme Court strikes it down. This will get the Republicans back on its side.
The process at the Supreme Court isn't finished---the justices will have a private session at which the arguments are rehashed and votes taken. Then the process of writing an opinion and dissenting opinion takes place and further discussions can take place. So, it is not done yet.
An interesting thing about the private session---no one else is allowed in the room. The most junior justice on the Court (which would be Kagan) has to act as the errand person, etc. for the meeting.
What's even funnier is "you'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it". Then of course, many who voted for "IT" never actually READ "IT".
jim,
Seems you STILL don't understand the context of Pelosi's ENTIRE statement...but I sure wouldn't expect you to...it's simply WAAAAAY over your head.
I Agree Amy!
Maybe we should all stop speculating. Last week all the legal analysts predicted the mandate would be upheld today they are all saying that it would not. Why don't we wait and see what the court rules and take a look at their written arguments.
I think you have that about right, lisa.
newday DAWNING...Returned, Thanks, I don't like some decisions SCOTUS makes but what other choice do we have.
absolutely none, lisa, and the way it goes is you win a few, lose a few.
Well said, lisa. I agree.
Robert Reich has an interesting column on the current arguments in the Supreme Court. It was written yesterday. Go to robertreich.org
Atta girl Lisa!
I have zero desire to speculate for the next 3 months how this SCOTUS will rule!
Basically, it is going to come down to (1) vote (Kennedy).
Nothing more then another right wing distraction from drama queens...
If Kennedy does vote to uphold the law, Roberts likely will as well. Roberts does not like 5-4 decisions against him.
Question...
Since the argument tomorrow is the "severability" of the individual mandate (can the mandate be struck down while keeping the remainder of the law in tact) how will it be viewed if the Supreme Court rules only to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional but does not strike down the remainder of ACA?
If it goes down to defeat it further proves to those who have pre-existing conditions and others who can't afford health insurance that President Obama must be re-elected, because there surely will be vacancies on the court that will need to be replaced. I don't want Romney making those picks.
Obamacare was written without a severability clause. If part of it is declared unconstitutional, it all goes down.
jim,
That is what the SCOTUS will hear arguments on that tomorrow and you won’t know their decision until June.
Severability has not been decided by the Supreme Court.
The verdict is not in yet. I hope the justices deliberate and come to a conclusion that this bill is constitutional. Too bad the final decision will be until the end of June.
Good catch!
They'll turn it in after all of the primaries :) wouldn't do to start disqualifying your potential nominees before they reach the prims.
Also, a bit more ammunition for whichever side wins the contest.
I still think it will be upheld, 8-1. ^.^ But I'm a realist and, realistically, they can't sever the individual mandate without killing the entire medical insurance industry.
Its unconstitutional. The govt doesnt own us, we own the govt. they cant force people to pay because they breathe.
Breitbart.com. great website with all the lies and deciet from the left. the socialists are so weak, they have to PAY protesters! 10 bucks an hour lol! wonder how much they pay these stooges on mslsd!?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/27/florida-dems-cant-find-voters-to-protest-allen-west-so-they-hire-some?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29
I will continually ignore the haters on the left, to educate the people being bombarded with the medias garbage
wuss,
(not-so) Breitbart is dead...time to find a new hero. I hear Glenn Beck is availablem abd Rush Limbaugh is on the chopping block as well...take your pick.
You big bunch of cry babies you know that mandate dog won't hunt. The Fed's can't mandate that I as a person buy anything and the SCOTUS is going to rule that way in June. And if bammy who is supposed to have a degree in constitutional law passed this bs law and the SCOTUS rules it is unconstitutional then send his white african american ass to jail for treason. Yea you read it right if George Zimmerman is a White Hispanic then bammy is a white african american. Oh by the way you need to get another bounty saved up looks like your chief of staff of the new black panthers got arrested, seems he was/is a felon in possession of a firearm, lmfao. Hey fiesty maybe you could go blow him out of jail, rotflmao. Hi boys the fiesty redhead is here and I will huff and I will puff and I will blow you next.
Bob, calm down. You have to understand Mickey. He's the guy Obama keeps in the room so Biden won't be the biggest A$$hole.
Be careful Ronald...your cowardly ignorance is showing.
Da Noid focuses on perhaps the biggest point of all - severability. Everybody knew that the mandate was a 50-50 proposition with the Supremes. It really is a tax and Obama should have called it just that. But regardless, it is hard to tell how the vote will come out. (I still think Kennedy is challenging the governments' lawyers to come up with their best arguments - because he is inclined to UPHOLD the ENTIRE law.) But, if they strike down the entire law, then they are just whores. Their is no legitimate rational for striking down the entire law. If they strike the mandate, just let people who refuse to buy health insurance to opt out. It will make the law less efficient, but laws can be enacted later to give a tax credit to those who have health insurance - but no such credit for those that don't (a simple fix).
But, we must remember that the old farts in FDR's time struck down much of the New Deal. And before that there was a majority that said that the "freedom" of minors to work more than 13 hours a day in a bakery must not be abridged (not at all worried about the employers mind you - but the freedom of the child workers to work as much as they pleased).
Well that's it, the media has decided so that ends it. Move on to something else. No matter how the SCOTUS decides the media has already decided and that is all that counts, right?
Just like the media decided Zimmerman was guilty of brutally killing Trayvon.
JFK,
It's funny you should mention that other media circus in Florida. The other similarity between the two stories is that any outcome that is unpopular with the left will likely lead to riots.
All the lefties thought Obama was the smartest turd in their toilet. He thought he was, too. Maybe he should have thought things over before he pissed all over the Supreme Court at the State of the Union address two years ago.
Ron, If you think SCOTUS will rule against the HCR bill simply because he outed them for being "political" rather than "constitutional", we have bigger problems...YOU included, idiot.
Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it.
No Mickey, we don't have that many problems. Most of them will be voted out of office in November including Obama. You must have never been in court, Mickey. You would know that it is not a good idea to wipe your a$$ on the Judges. Especially when the Judges are a captive audience. Now it's their turn to make him look like the piece of crap that he is. Now take your head out of Obama's lap and spout some more left wing bull$hit, Mickey.
Ron, face it...bigoted dinosaurs like you are a dying breed. You immediately assume that I am somehow "left wing". Maybe if you tried actually researching the role of SCOTUS now, and twenty years ago, you would have an idea what I was talking about. But, based on your post, you are a disappointment.
It's a brave new world, Ron...either get onboard, or get left behind. Time to step up to the plate.
But, like I said...be careful for what you wish for...
Mickey, I've read your posts. There is no assumption. You are obviously left wing. You criticize folks that listen to Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, and watch Fox News. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on. That's your right, but don't talk about bravery when you won't even admit what you are.
As far as Obama Care. The people don't want it, Mickey. It appears to be unconstitutional, Mickey. The Federal Government has prepared a terrible defense, but it appeared to be indefensible, Mickey. The best argument made for it was from Ginsberg when she attempted to compare it to Social Security, Mickey. But there is a difference, Mickey, and it's a big one. Social Security is not a product, Mickey. Health Insurance is, Mickey, and the Federal Government has no right to compel anyone to buy a product as a requirement of citizenship, Mickey.
So put on your brave new hat. Show everybody your brave new balls, and go play in the NYC traffic.
So, rather than address my original post regarding the role of SCOTUS, you have focused on whether or not I am "left wing" or not.
It is a brave new world, and not for bigoted cowards such as yourself Ronald. You have no idea what my political leanings are, do you Ronald? And yes...you most certainly assumed, Ronald. It really makes no difference, does it, Ronald? Anyone who disagrees with your backwards thinking is a "lefty", right Ronald? And, you seem to think that anyone with "NY" after their name is from New York City, right Ronald? Try looking at a map once in a while...preferrably one from this century. New York is a big place, Ronald. But this is the typical ignorance shown by basement dwellers, am I right Ronald?
Yeah, I'm right and you know it Ronald.
Good luck in this brave new world, Ronald.
You re going to need all the help you can get, Ronald.
You are outnumbered, Ronald...
Have a nice day :)
gopjobs.gov.