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.

Comments:


Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Casey
James Delingpole: 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. · 10 minutes ago

I kind of assumed when you said Obama was going to destroy America you meant he was going on a weekend bender.  But you mean literally... got it.

Paul A. Rahe

Fredösphere: We conservatives've been here before.
I know this town, she's Babylon's whore.
I used to live in peace before I knew you.
Yeah I've seen your flag on the marble arch,
We never expected our victory march,
But Justice Kennedy's got us all singing Hallelujah.

Hallelujah Hallelujah
Hallelujah Hallelujah · 2 hours ago

Fredo, you are on a roll.

Paul A. Rahe
ParisParamus: My bet is placed: the whole thing is sunk 5-4. · 39 minutes ago

On this, ParisParamus, we agree.

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa

I agree with Adam's suggestion that we remain calm. I've argued several cases on appeal (to state appellate courts, not the S. Ct.), and have found that questions asked by judges can be misleading.  Based on the questions they asked in one case, I thought I'd won and lost 4-1.  

Based on what I've heard the justices say, there's good reason for some optimism--but, to coin a cliche, don't count your chickens.

I hope we can get a quick, clear decision so that it can be properly teed up for the election.

Edited on March 28, 2012 at 10:48pm
tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa

One more thought that might be relevant.  Supreme Court justices read newspapers and they undoubtedly know how unpopular Obamacare is with the public and that the cost projections have now been shown to be completely bogus. Justices also look to history's judgment of them. Given that, were I Justice Kennedy, would I want to be the deciding vote in favor of a piece of legislation that has disaster written all over it? We shall see.

TucsonSean
Joined
Jun '10
TucsonSean

Clement has hit everything out of the park.  The coercion argument is much harder, but for 2 1/2 days he was outstanding.  I think the good guys lose on the medicare coercion argument, win on unconstitutionality, and have a better than even money chance on severability.

Bill Waldron
Joined
Aug '10
Bill Waldron

Remaining calm is not a problem for me. I am the type to worry when my team is leading 6-0 heading into the ninth inning. Still, it is hard not to be just a wee bit optimistic today.

Frank Monaldo
Joined
Jun '11
Frank Monaldo

I beg to differ.  Americans like a winner. A loss in the SCOTUS makes Obama look like a loser and makes him less likely to win.

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. · Mar 28 at 10:58am


Joined
Mar '12
shjUVA
Troy Senik, Ed.:  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.

Didn't he already do that, when he openly criticized the Citizens United decision in front of SCOTUS at the State of the Union?  How many Justices refused to attend the next one as a result of this blatant attack?


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In