Striking Down PPACA in Its Entirety...

[Winter_123]

Can't blame them.

If they strike the mandate but opt to leave the rest isn't there a chance some other portion of the law will come back before the court again? They certainly don't want to spend any more time on this in the future.

I don't think the Supreme Court will be overly worried about constitutional issues coming back before them anytime soon because they have more or less addressed whatever constitutional issues are on the near and medium term horizon AND the court has to agree to hear a case and it accepts very, very few. They only accepted the case to deal with the constitutional issue and they will have done that. (acknowledging that lesser issues can arise from anyone, anywhere, anytime but the supreme court doesn't have to hear them unless they want. That is what lower courts are for. There is a right of appeal to the court but not a right to have the court accept it for hearing.)

But practically speaking, they do know that it would be creating a jungle of a mess for policy makers and for the lower courts if they left a hodge-podge of non-constitutional implementation issues and I am not sure they want to be blamed for that even though there is nothing anyone can do about it if they do. They will just say "take up the policy and statutory issues with Congress, just as long as they stay in line with whatever constitutional rulings we made."

The justices are meeting together today right as we speak. In addition to the above mentioned factors there is always the big, big issue of where they want to set precedent for future cases. You can be sure that will come up. In other words, in matters of severability does the court really want to shoot itself in the foot multiple times by having lawyers argue in future cases involving severability that "we would like the court to pick through a huge bone pile of provisions to see what should stand and not stand after the heart of a statute has been struck down and we cite the Obamacare case as precedent." Ahhh.....I am thinking there is only so much pain they want to sign up for.

What a mess.

 

[JosephDeacon]

Is it possible to make wagers on this in Vegas? Could be fun.

 

[Winter_123]

Is it possible to make wagers on this in Vegas? Could be fun.

Obama sent his press twerp out several times to say that the administration was so confident that they would prevail in court that they were giving no thought whatsoever to a contingency plan.

You guys may remember Baghdad Bob. Saddam's spokesman who would come out and announce that they were still in total control of the city while the American tanks were whizzing by in the background. Lot of entertainment value in some of these clowns.

 

[dgoldenz]

Is it possible to make wagers on this in Vegas? Could be fun.

Intrade - Markets

Before the hearings it was at 33% chance, now at 63%.

 

[b61mack]

The reason it will go down is simple, congress did not read it, but passed it anyway. now are the scotus, going to pass it without reading it?.

 

[stuy119]

Dems are already crying foul on the makeup of the Supreme Court, saying that it's not fair that it's 5 "Republican" Justices to only 4 "Democrat" Justices.

I seem to remember that prior to Tuesday morning's oral arguments, that wasn't an issue. There were also no holes in their case, and that an "easy" victory was assured. Now that Clement tore Verelli a new hole, it's all about the makeup of the Court.

L-O-freaking-L

 

[Winter_123]

The reason it will go down is simple, congress did not read it, but passed it anyway. now are the scotus, going to pass it without reading it?.

Not really. It is true that Congress did not read the entire jungle but I dont think any of them can honestly say they did not know there was a mandate in there -and that was the part that was challenged.

And we can most definitely say that the Court read the mandate section and was discussed in Court at length, duh.

In regard to the other sections, the Court really has no responsibility to read anything that is not challenged. They review issues that are presented up for review from the lower courts and that is it. If they review anything in the rest of the bill, it is not to rule on a consitutional issue because none have been presented. It is just to see if it is related to the issue they shoot down or whether it is standalone.

 

[somarco]

Scalia mocked the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" without seeming to know that provision was stripped out of the law two years ago.

The Cornhusker Kickback (and other shady deals) were used to buy votes . . . and it worked.

Scalia also joked that the task of having to review the complex bill violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?" he quipped. "Is this not totally unrealistic, that we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?"

Why so critical of Scalia?

None of the Congress critters read it either.


Dems fume over Justice Scalia’s comments during healthcare case - The Hill's Healthwatch

 

[Winter_123]

Why so critical of Scalia?

None of the Congress critters read it either.

As I said elswhere in another post, there seems to be an undercurrent that the Congress was remiss and did not read it and therefore the Court is remiss for not reading the whole thing. This is not true. If the Court fails at doing Congresses job, they are supposed to. That is how the Separation of Powers works. The Courts authority is limited to the very narrow issues that come before it on appeal. If a someone appeals a tax issue, the court has no responsibility whatsoever to read the entire tax code - none. Just the issue that is on appeal. Now if the court did not read the briefs or supporting documentation on the primary issue before it (the mandate) then that would be another matter but they did and they had hearings on it. If Congress did not know what was in the bowels of the bill, then they are clowns if they voted for it. If the Court does not know and says they do not intend to even start down that road, then that is 100% fine. If you want to talk mammogram procedures and coal mine safety before the court, then the government's lawyer need to file a brief raising a constitutional issue there along with the lower court review of those issues. Otherwise it should be of no concern to the court whatsoever. They have within their discretion to look at a wide range of things ever so lightly just to address the severability issue but also have within their discretion to just say they are not going to even bother to go down that road.

As I said, there is a little bit of an argument growing on the street that Congress is a bozo for not reading the bill and, guess what, the Court is a bozo now for not reading it. Not so. Refer to the Constitution for the responsibilities of each. If the court comes out and says "we just ruled on the mandate issue but none of us knew it was in there or read the briefs or listened at the oral arguments" then we can revisit the discussion.

 

[b61mack]

If the mandate is not struck down, we are one more step into socialism.