Obamacare just committed suicide before the SCOTUS

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by IP, Mar 27, 2012.

  1. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    Media members who were they say the attorney general shit the bed and had nothing in terms of arguments. The liberal judges had to raise all the contentions and talking points. Looks like it is going to be struck down.

    I personally think if Obama care is unconstitutional, forcing me to pay for uninsured is unconstitutional too. Then we are left with a State that leaves people to die.
     
  2. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Most of the time, oral argument before SCOTUS rarely ever changes the outcome. Cases are decided on the briefs. If he sucked at oral argument, the liberal judges will just rely on the briefs to side with them if they want.
     
  3. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Please expound upon your Constitutionality comments.
     
  4. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Yea, I'm not sure those two things are analogous.
     
  5. alumvol08

    alumvol08 Active Member

    Yep. Oral arguments, at any federal stage, are really just a formality and a chance for attorneys and judges to beat on their chests some.
     
  6. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    I'm saying if it is unconstitutional to have a healthcare mandate, why isn't it unconstitutional for the healthcare costs of the uninsured to be pushed onto the insured?
     
  7. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    You have a mandate and a penalty for violation. This is about how far the court can go under the commerce clause. What you're trying to analogize doesn't tough on the commerce clause. It's just a different analysis altogether.
     
  8. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    I know nothing of law. It doesn't sound just, though.
     
  9. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    How many members had their mind made up before they even walked into court yesterday? 6? 8?
     
  10. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    I'm going with 9.
     
  11. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Having neither files a brief nor argued a case before the SCOTUS, I wouldn't have any idea as to what will / won't determine the outcome.

    I can't imagine that you can win a case on the oral argument, alone. But you can likely lose it. I'd hate to think that it was of significantly lesser importance than the briefs, but maybe so.

    My instinct is to say that some Justices, perhaps even a majority (all?), will weight everything as they please to arrive at their pre-determined conclusion.

    Nothing that the SCOTUS has done or failed to do would surprise me, dating back to the Warren court.
     
  12. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    the distinction here is the individual rights vs the govt right to save it's people. i wonder if the govt simply instituted universal healthcare if it would still be unconstitutional. probably not.
     
  13. volfanjo

    volfanjo Chieftain

    I don't know either Tenny, but guys that were good at arguing before the court -- like Daniel Webster and Thurgood Marshall -- went on to some pretty special things imo.
     
  14. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    .
     
  15. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    It would be a different analysis most likely if it was universal healthcare. Under this, it's simply how far Congress can go in regulating personal activity through the Commerce Clause.
     
  16. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Why healthcare one of the only (if not the only) fields where one is forced to provide a service to someone that can't pay?
     
  17. JZ1124

    JZ1124 Active Member

    Is it the govt's right to save it's people or to protect them? To me, there is a difference.
     
  18. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

  19. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    To sort of outline the basic arguments as I understand them that are before the court:

    1) Anti-Obamacare Position: The mandate and the penalty are two separate, distinct phases of the act, which calls into question Congress' ability to regulate personal activity through the Commerce Clause; seeing as how the SCOTUS has shot down the Gun-Free School Zones Act under the Commerce Clause finding that it did not sufficiently affect commerce to the level that gun possession within school districts can be regulated.

    2.) The Government Position: Is that the mandate and the penalty are one phase and is thus, a tax, and permissible.
     
  20. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Transcript snippets:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: They would apply even if the rule is not jurisdictional. The only difference would be that the court could enforce it or not enforce it in particular cases, which brings me to the Davis case, which I think is your biggest hurdle. It's a case quite similar to this in which the constitutionality of the Social Security Act was at
    issue, and the government waived its right to insist upon the application of this Act. Of course, if it's jurisdictional, you can't waive it.

    So, are you asking us to overrule the Davis case?
     

Share This Page