Yes, the justices typically ask questions. Oral arguments are today.
There is no live blog (apparently, there usually is). There will be a transcript available later today at SCOTUSblog
Cspan2 has coverage outside the building.
Decision late June.
Look for the "Escape Hatch" W/SCOTUS
- Thread starter Yagents
- Start date
Yes, the justices typically ask questions. Oral arguments are today.
There is no live blog (apparently, there usually is). There will be a transcript available later today at SCOTUSblog
Cspan2 has coverage outside the building.
Decision late June.
- 8,448
HouCoogster, I thought this to be an unusual question, until I remembered that you're a recent entrant to the health insurance business who has been wildly successful. No wonder you don't remember 2012.
- 2,908
In the scheme of things, the biggest problem for Obama now is the makeup of Congress even though this is a legal issue before the Court.
Unlike the last time around, the Court is not being asked to rule on a constitutional issue. They are just being asked to interpret a statute and the intent of Congress. If the dems still controlled both houses of Congress -and they don't- and the court ruled against the dems based on the flaky language, then Congress could just pass new legislation with the language they allegedly intended. That is not going to work now though if the court decides against the government. Obama likes to crow about legislation being dead on arrival due to his mighty pen. Well try introducing your preferred language in a bill before the current congress if you want to see what a roadkill looks like.
No one ever knows what the Court is going to do on any case but the other- less publicized- factor is that the Court has a vested interest in trying to maintain their primary role as the interpreter of the Constitution rather than just the adult or Miss Cleo who is supposed to figure out what they really meant. They do that for the Framers who are dead and long gone and to be expected but they are not interested in doing group therapy for living congressmen to help them clarify what they are thinking. The Justices can see as plain as day from the last case that the legislators never read the draft legislation and now are just telling the court to do it for them. Yeh, they gotta love that. If the court loves that Shiite-and they don't- then that is what they are enabling by ruling in favor of the government.
Not saying they how they will rule. Just saying that last time there was a general understanding that the Obamacare presented big heavy duty constitutional issues and the justices loved all the attention and melodrama. But now they are just doing dogfood work for a bunch of bozos who stand ready to send some slop over to them at any time if they are not disciplined. Different dynamic completely. I am sure that the comments from the bench -from a certain justice who shall remain unnamed but let's just call him Scalia for now- will include some choice questions such as "Do you think we are just here to wipe your arse or what were you thinking when you passed that legislation if it was not the plain wording." He might pretty that question up a little- but not much.
Change you can believe in.
Last edited:
- 8,448
The (almost) live SCOTUS Blogging is quite intriguing. Legal minds really burrow into the nuances of words and human intent don't they?
It went down how you would expect. The three things I took away:
1. Pro or con, this guy is an ***:
Mr. Carvin said there was "not a scintilla" of evidence that state insurance markets would go into a death spiral if subsidies weren't available for residents Seriously?
2. Chief Justice Roberts said nothing
3. Kennedy (a swing vote) seems to be very concerned with the ramifications:
Justice Kennedy was very attentive to the consequences of the reading that petitioners urged. He seemed to realize that state legislators would be in an impossible position under that reading – more or less forced to "adopt" or "endorse" the ACA system in order to avoid unmanageable consequences in their states. His plausible conclusion was that Congress either did not intend to put them to that choice, or that the statute shouldn't be read to have done so, because that's not typically how our constitutional system works. Instead, the federal government makes and administers federal laws without forcing the states to do some of the work for them. Kennedy seemed to be thinking that this provision should be read more like the typical case, and rather unlike the kind of unusual provision the petitioners suggested.
But based on Halbig v Sebelius, who knows. After those arguments, who would have thought Chief Justice Roberts would have sided with ACA???
1. Pro or con, this guy is an ***:
Mr. Carvin said there was "not a scintilla" of evidence that state insurance markets would go into a death spiral if subsidies weren't available for residents Seriously?
2. Chief Justice Roberts said nothing
3. Kennedy (a swing vote) seems to be very concerned with the ramifications:
Justice Kennedy was very attentive to the consequences of the reading that petitioners urged. He seemed to realize that state legislators would be in an impossible position under that reading – more or less forced to "adopt" or "endorse" the ACA system in order to avoid unmanageable consequences in their states. His plausible conclusion was that Congress either did not intend to put them to that choice, or that the statute shouldn't be read to have done so, because that's not typically how our constitutional system works. Instead, the federal government makes and administers federal laws without forcing the states to do some of the work for them. Kennedy seemed to be thinking that this provision should be read more like the typical case, and rather unlike the kind of unusual provision the petitioners suggested.
But based on Halbig v Sebelius, who knows. After those arguments, who would have thought Chief Justice Roberts would have sided with ACA???
There could be other reasons too.
Some parts of the 60's are a bit hazy to me as well but for different reasons. Probably because I did inhale.
But apparently he can just executive order his way into getting things done ......
BTW, I have been missing your photoshop work. Nice touch with Condi Uhura.
- 8,448
Yep. Condi would whip the knickers off of Clinton!
- 4,716
I've been in the biz since 97 AC. I wasn't listening to the arguments last time around because I was in Medicare. I just watched the news and then read the final opinion.
So anyway here we are again....nothing like a good ole fashioned cliffhanger.
My take is Roberts can't trust congress or states to act responsibly due to extreme politics. Too much at stake and too many people harmed if he nixes the subsidies. My prediction is 5-4 narrow win for the defendant. With some choice words for Congress in the opinions...along the lines of "had you done your job right the first time it wouldn't have had to get this far"
- 2,172
So when is the decision, June?
- Thread starter
- #90
