In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
From the Los Angeles Times, a dispatch:
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
Hard to imagine that the L.A. Times would print a story purely to mess with my mind, but this sounds so good--so in excess of even my fondest hopes--that I can't help wondering how it could possibly be true.
Adam Freedman? Calm me.
ObamaCare delenda est.
- Comment (49)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
So, if it's struck down, Americans are going to vote for Democrats so they can pass another version of this disaster? I don't see that happening to a significant degree. It will certainly energize the Democratic base, but it opens the door for a conservative plan to be tried, and people may be more willing to listen to a free market solution since ObamaCare has failed to deliver on many of it's key selling points.
Mar '12
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
We are seeing two very different views of the Constitution.
For instance, in the transcripts, Justice Breyer indicated during yesterday's arguments that government can force individuals to buy a cell phone.
Justice Scalia indicated that if the mandate were to survive that the Government could force individuals to buy broccoli.
One Justice supported the notion, the other did not.
What we have is a partisan divide. If conventional wisdom is correct, there are four Justices who believe in expansive Federal power over the individual and four Justices who believe in the sovereignty of the individual.
The decision, when rendered, will be of enormous consequence.
If the mandate is upheld the good news would be that a newly elected Republican Admin and Congress could throw out ObamaCare AND mandate that every citizen buy a gun. :)
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 8:26pmJul '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Scalia's first hypothetical of the day:
Man, I love that guy.
Oct '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Will this bring the disgruntled Democrats and left-leaning independents to life? Which ruling should we fear more? Is this why Obama pushed for SCOTUS to take this on pre-election? If the court approved ObamaCare, fine, he is vindicated. "More of this if you re-elect me!"
If it's struck down, he can demonize the cold-hearted Republicans and ask for another four years and a chance to tilt the court to the left. Launch a crusade, as you say, and energize the Party. If the ruling went against ObamaCare after the election, he wouldn't be able to make hay with it.
Jun '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Troy Senik, Ed.:
1. If SCOTUS really does scrap the entire law, Obama will launch the biggest crusade against the federal judiciary since FDR, campaigning against them as another elite institution hellbent on obstructing the relief he is trying to bring to everyday Americans.
Is there a possibility that, seeing that they aren't going to win the mandate argument, the liberal wing strikes a comprise deal to save the rest of the law? Given what was said on Uncommon Knowledge about Chief Justice Roberts trying to make the Court less political, striking down the whole law 5-4 in an election year has to be his nightmare scenario.
What if he and the liberal justices wrote a majority opinion striking down the mandate but upholding the rest of the law? Then you'd end up with a less political 9-0 ruling but on much narrower grounds leaving most of Obamacare intact.
Oct '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
"...Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a 'salvage job'..."
She must be senile. She thinks she's in the legislative branch.
Feb '12
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Diane Ellis, Ed.: A little something to temper your optimism from SCOTUSblog:
22 minutes ago
Wouldn't this simply mean that they could strike the mandate and send down to the lower court the issue of what must be struck down with it? That seems like a fact intensive investigation, suited for a lower court.
Mar '11
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Troy Senik, Ed.: Absolutely fascinating. Two thoughts:
2. If the law is completely overturned, it likely also hurts Mitt Romney's presidential bid.
Troy, I disagree in one regard, because the way I see it, the problem for conservatives was not that Romney was the best man suited to repeal it, but that because of Romneycare, he was uniquely unsuited to argue against a mandate. And that's still a huge problem with conservatives. That's not going away, regardless of the verdict. But it may not be fatal. And here's why.
I'm not a Romney supporter... far from it... but do you know how you address the problem of Romney's support of the mandate in Romneycare vs Obama's support of the Obamacare mandate? Replay, over and over, clips of Obama from his 2008 campaign where he was very much opposed to a mandate. "So you want to talk about flip-floppers, do you?" should be how Romney fights that. It makes the field even, in that regard (if done right). At the very least, Romney can hang on his federalism argument that it's a different issue in states vs. the federal govt.
Mar '11
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Joseph Stanko
Troy Senik, Ed.:
1. If SCOTUS really does scrap the entire law, Obama will launch the biggest crusade against the federal judiciary since FDR, campaigning against them as another elite institution hellbent on obstructing the relief he is trying to bring to everyday Americans.
Is there a possibility that, seeing that they aren't going to win the mandate argument, the liberal wing strikes a comprise deal to save the rest of the law? Given what was said on Uncommon Knowledge about Chief Justice Roberts trying to make the Court less political, striking down the whole law 5-4 in an election year has to be his nightmare scenario.
What if he and the liberal justices wrote a majority opinion striking down the mandate but upholding the rest of the law? Then you'd end up with a less political 9-0 ruling but on much narrower grounds leaving most of Obamacare intact. · 41 minutes ago
I see the liberals as being too ideologically rigid to make such a deal. And I think that , politics aside, Roberts seems sufficiently horrified by the Pandora's Box this law creates that he wouldn't support it. It's all Kennedy.
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Listening to Randy Barnett on a Federalist Society recap call. He doesn't share my pessimistic view of Kennedy's question, but he also says that the LA Times reporter is over-interpreting this morning's remarks. Remain calm.
Jun '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Trace Urdan: But it will make what will already be an incredibly divisive election even more so. The sole reason voters will give to vote for Obama will be to prevent a Republican from being in a position to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. For many, this would become a single-issue election, with the economy being an after-thought.
The base will have been quite effectively rallied. · 59 minutes ago
Edited 57 minutes ago
Who cares?
I could say more, Trace, but that about somes up my feelings.
Jul '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
The King Prawn
So you're saying they may be too lazy to do the work? Either the mandate is constitutional or it is not irrespective of the rest of the law's constitutionality. · 57 minutes ago
Precisely so! The idea that they should uphold the mandate because it's just too tiresome to deal with the rest is preposterous. If they pull a stunt like this, all three branches will be in abrogation of their Constitutional duties, and the rule of law will effectively be dead.
Apr '11
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Whiskey Sam
The King Prawn
So you're saying they may be too lazy to do the work? Either the mandate is constitutional or it is not irrespective of the rest of the law's constitutionality. · 57 minutes ago
Precisely so! The idea that they should uphold the mandate because it's just too tiresome to deal with the rest is preposterous. If they pull a stunt like this, all three branches will be in abrogation of their Constitutional duties, and the rule of law will effectively be dead. · 0 minutes ago
My guess is that that is exactly what they will do. Kennedy has his out now, and he has shored up his "moderate" credentials by seeming to be tough on the side he ends up supporting.
May '11
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Casey: Unless I put my hand in the side of a stricken down Obamacare, I will not believe it.
'Tis the season. · 1 hour ago
Heresy! Obamacare is not thy savior! ;-)
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Peter I can confirm that this is not happening. It is a figment of your imagination. As you know, I have been predicting in these pages and on podcasts for some considerable time now that America is doomed and that nothing good can happen to it ever again. No way would something as miraculous as ObamaCare being struck out happen, especially not by your notoriously leftist Supreme Court judges.
May '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
My bet is placed: the whole thing is sunk 5-4.
Jun '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Troy Senik, Ed.: Absolutely fascinating. Two thoughts:
1. If SCOTUS really does scrap the entire law, Obama will launch the biggest crusade against the federal judiciary since FDR, campaigning against them as another elite institution hellbent on obstructing the relief he is trying to bring to everyday Americans.
2. If the law is completely overturned, it likely also hurts Mitt Romney's presidential bid. A lot of conservatives who are otherwise less than anxious to reconcile themselves to a Romney nomination are willing to do so because they see it as the only way to get to a repeal of Obamacare. Take that out of play and their passions may cool further. That's not necessarily rational, but I suspect it will be the reaction in some quarters. · 2 hours ago
Possible, but the way to pivot is to demonstrate to voters how close they came to getting this shoved down their throats. If Obama gets reelected, then what is to prevent him from packing the court and then revisiting the whole issue somehow.
I am not a big fan of Romney, but he will be better than a president who has no qualms about pushing any liberal experiment through.
Feb '11
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Adam, I am on that same line, and I actually just made a post pursuant to his answer of a question of mine.
May '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
(By "thing" I mean Obamacare; not the United States, and not Mitt Romney's bid for the White House)
Nov '10
Re: In the High Court This Morning. Oh, Can This Be True?
Peter Robinson
Fredo, I'm counting on you to compose the celebratory music. Something a little like the final movement of Beethoven's Ninth, perhaps? · 2 hours ago
How about the Hallelujah Chorus! Perhaps it would be Divine intervention.