A Bad Day for Obamacare

[Harry]

The quick read is that today went very badly for supporters of the individual mandate. As one of the experienced Supreme Court watchers who runs SCOTUSblog tweeted, “Paul Clement” — the attorney arguing against the health-care law — “gave the best argument I’ve ever heard. No real hard questions from the right. Mandate is in trouble.”

As Lyle Denniston writes, this still looks like Justice Anthony Kennedy’s case to decide. But however he decides it, it’s worth keeping in mind what an oddly narrow principle is actually being debated.

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-bad-day-for-obamacares-supporters/2011/08/25/gIQAZkNOeS_blog.html

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

It's not really an "oddly narrow principal." The principal is whether the government can make you buy things you don't yet want or need under threat of penalty...or, whether the government can keep you from buying more of a service than your fellow man if you can and are willing - again, under threat of penalty to you...and the dastardly doctor who would take your cash for services.

Edited March 27, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[KRAM1]

Yesterday was really not so much about the mandates and Obamacare but rather a very narrow point of law regarding whether the Justices even have standing to hear the case at this time....seems to me the majority felt it to be a slam dunk that they do indeed have standing to pursue the case...yes, not the best day for Obamacare, but nothing more than some very fine and technical legal wrangling...real stuff starts today.

One question...after listening to the day...one question...Is Justice Ginsburg really alive? Or was it just a recorded voice being played by someone acting to be Ginsburg? Wow...can you say old?

Maybe there really does need to be an age limit for Supreme Court Justices...just sayin.....

Am hearing that today did not go well for Obamacare either. Solicitor general seems to be over his head a bit at this point, but it's still early....

[untgirl04]

Yesterday was really not so much about the mandates and Obamacare but rather a very narrow point of law regarding whether the Justices even have standing to hear the case at this time....seems to me the majority felt it to be a slam dunk that they do indeed have standing to pursue the case...yes, not the best day for Obamacare, but nothing more than some very fine and technical legal wrangling...real stuff starts today.

One question...after listening to the day...one question...Is Justice Ginsburg really alive? Or was it just a recorded voice being played by someone acting to be Ginsburg? Wow...can you say old?

Maybe there really does need to be an age limit for Supreme Court Justices...just sayin.....

Am hearing that today did not go well for Obamacare either. Solicitor general seems to be over his head a bit at this point, but it's still early....

To clarify, neither the Administration nor the states were disputing the Court's standing to hear the case. The Court itself appointed another lawyer to argue the case so that both sides were presented. While some of the questions from yesterday indicated that the Court was definitely thinking about the arguments today, I think yesterday was more of a wash. Just getting through all the technical stuff so that they could get to the real arguments today and tomorrow.

While Justice Ginsberg may be frail of body, she is still very sound of mind.

[KRAM1]

While Justice Ginsberg may be frail of body, she is still very sound of mind.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...not 100% sure of this from what I have heard from her over the last couple of days. But, am also sure that if her mind was, indeed, fading that the court itself would take some sort of action. We'll see how this plays out....

[Censored by Laurie]

But, am also sure that if her mind was, indeed, fading that the court itself would take some sort of action.

I would support this board in adopting a similar policy...

[UNTLifer]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...not 100% sure of this from what I have heard from her over the last couple of days. But, am also sure that if her mind was, indeed, fading that the court itself would take some sort of action. We'll see how this plays out....

Sounded to me like she was throwing the administration's lead counsel a bone by asking leading questions after Judge Alito had him stammering like a first year law student.

[FirefightnRick]

While Justice Ginsberg may be frail of body, she is still very sound of mind.

I'm not so sure. She has mentioned before that she would look to foreign court decisions for guidance, and even this past January in an interview in Cairo she threw our own constitution out the window claiming it's "too old".

..."As for her own country’s constitution, Justice Ginsburg said she “would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a new constitution in 2012."

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/trashing-the-constitution/

Rick

[Coffee and TV]

I'm not so sure. She has mentioned before that she would look to foreign court decisions for guidance, and even this past January in an interview in Cairo she threw our own constitution out the window claiming it's "too old".

..."As for her own country's constitution, Justice Ginsburg said she "would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a new constitution in 2012."

http://frontpagemag....e-constitution/

Rick

Thomas Jefferson thought we should write a new one every 19 years. I guess he's just old and crazy too.

[untgirl04]

I'm not so sure. She has mentioned before that she would look to foreign court decisions for guidance, and even this past January in an interview in Cairo she threw our own constitution out the window claiming it's "too old".

..."As for her own country’s constitution, Justice Ginsburg said she “would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a new constitution in 2012."

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/trashing-the-constitution/

Rick

Given our more global culture and diversity as a nation, I don't have a problem with her wanting to look at foreign courts, as long as the final decision is soundly based on our own laws.

The Constitution comment also makes some sense. While I personally would like to think that any new republic that forms would include our Bill of Rights as intrinsic freedoms, we don't live in isolated nations anymore. It might make some sense, if a country were starting over, to try and think outside the box to incorporate the appropriate level of freedoms for a globalized country.

But her expressed opinions don't negate her sound mind; they just differ from your (and some of the other justice's) opinions. Which is why we have 9 judges on the Court instead of one, and why I appreciate the dissenting opinions.

It is only by examining our own beliefs through exploring all sides of an argument that we can be confident in our decisions.

Edited March 28, 2012 by untgirl04

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Given our more global culture and diversity as a nation, I don't have a problem with her wanting to look at foreign courts, as long as the final decision is soundly based on our own laws.

The Constitution comment also makes some sense. While I personally would like to think that any new republic that forms would include our Bill of Rights as intrinsic freedoms, we don't live in isolated nations anymore. It might make some sense, if a country were starting over, to try and think outside the box to incorporate the appropriate level of freedoms for a globalized country.

But her expressed opinions don't negate her sound mind; they just differ from your (and some of the other justice's) opinions. Which is why we have 9 judges on the Court instead of one, and why I appreciate the dissenting opinions.

It is only by examining our own beliefs through exploring all sides of an argument that we can be confident in our decisions.

If only everyone (left, right, and in between) had this frame of mind...

[Rudy]

Thomas Jefferson thought we should write a new one every 19 years. I guess he's just old and crazy too.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's dead now.

[Monkeypox]

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's dead now.

So does that mean I SHOULD or SHOULDN'T want him on the Supreme Court?

[FirefightnRick]

Given our more global culture and diversity as a nation, I don't have a problem with her wanting to look at foreign courts, as long as the final decision is soundly based on our own laws.

Im thinking we wouldn't have our global culture or be the diverse nation we are if it wasn't for the very document she detests.

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

Given our more global culture and diversity as a nation, I don't have a problem with her wanting to look at foreign courts, as long as the final decision is soundly based on our own laws.

The Constitution comment also makes some sense. While I personally would like to think that any new republic that forms would include our Bill of Rights as intrinsic freedoms, we don't live in isolated nations anymore. It might make some sense, if a country were starting over, to try and think outside the box to incorporate the appropriate level of freedoms for a globalized country.

But her expressed opinions don't negate her sound mind; they just differ from your (and some of the other justice's) opinions. Which is why we have 9 judges on the Court instead of one, and why I appreciate the dissenting opinions.

It is only by examining our own beliefs through exploring all sides of an argument that we can be confident in our decisions.

This is one of more logically sound and well-thought out responses I've seen in the Eagle's Nest. Thank you...clearly you and Rick won't share the same opinion, but considering your temperate and sound retort I could only assume a man of his character would reply in kind. Certainly he wouldn't take but one sentence from such an eloquent response and belittle it with any sort of ridiculous and hyperbolic rhetoric that rather than pay any heed to the crux of your sentiment would simply to serve to reinforce his already pre-conceived notions.

Im thinking we wouldn't have our global culture or be the diverse nation we are if it wasn't for the very document she detests.

[forevereagle]

Im thinking we wouldn't have our global culture or be the diverse nation we are if it wasn't for the very document she detests.

Rick

So because she says that she would not base a new countries' constitution on the US Constitution, she hates the document? That seems to be a little bit of a leap in logic.

[untgirl04]

Im thinking we wouldn't have our global culture or be the diverse nation we are if it wasn't for the very document she detests.

Rick

I don't think the Constitution had as much to do with the global culture as our leaders' penchant for getting involved with foreign wars. Up until the 20th century, we were an isolationist nation still operating under the same Constitution.

And Ginsberg saying she thinks the document is outdated for starting a new frame of government doesn't mean she detests the Constitution. I think the graphics for the game "Lemmings" is outdated, but it doesn't mean I don't still love that blasted game.

[FirefightnRick]

So because she says that she would not base a new countries' constitution on the US Constitution, she hates the document? That seems to be a little bit of a leap in logic.

Just an opinion. To me, a bigger leap would be thinking the constitution gives the government a right to force me to buy something against my will.

Rick

[Coffee and TV]

Just an opinion. To me, a bigger leap would be thinking the constitution gives the government a right to force me to buy something against my will.

Rick

Wars are cool, just not health insurance that you already have, right?

[UNTFan23]

Wars are cool, just not health insurance that you already have, right?

Didn't Congress sign off on the 2 wars we got into? That passes constitutional muster better than the health insurance mandate.

[Rudy]

So does that mean I SHOULD or SHOULDN'T want him on the Supreme Court?

Weekend at Bernie's Supreme Court style.

[Coffee and TV]

Didn't Congress sign off on the 2 wars we got into? That passes constitutional muster better than the health insurance mandate.

Congress didn't sign off on the health insurance mandate?

[UNTFan23]

Congress didn't sign off on the health insurance mandate?

Congress passing a law does not mean it is constitutional, hence the law going before the SCOTUS.

[Coffee and TV]

Congress passing a law does not mean it is constitutional, hence the law going before the SCOTUS.

But that wasn't what you were just arguing. I made the comparison that Rick's ok with paying for wars, yet not for health insurance. Congress signed off on both, which is what you're argument was.

[forevereagle]

But that wasn't what you were just arguing. I made the comparison that Rick's ok with paying for wars, yet not for health insurance. Congress signed off on both, which is what you're argument was.

Isn't declaring war a power given to Congress by the Constitution? The Constitutionality of declaring war is not at issue.