Re: SCOTUS Argument recap: A lift for the mandate?

Should be a most intersting ruling, as this is the most singularly balanced SCOTUS in decades.

 

For eg., the 2000 court that drop kicked Gore, was liberal (4-3-2), and the death blow was 9-ZIP

 

On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:57:17 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:

Argument recap: A lift for the mandate?
Analysis

The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the
assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health
care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that
because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that.
A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves
did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the
entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to
throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress.
They could not come together, however, on just what task they would
send across the street for the lawmakers to perform.  The net effect
may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate
itself.

The dilemma could be captured perfectly in two separate comments by
Justice Antonin Scalia — first, that it "just couldn't be right" that
all of the myriad provisions of the law unrelated to the mandate had
to fall with it, but, later, that if the Court were to strike out the
mandate, "then the statute's gone."  Much of the lively argument
focused on just what role the Court would more properly perform in
trying to sort out the consequences of nullifying the requirement that
virtually every American have health insurance by the year 2014.

The Wednesday morning argument offered the Court three mutually
exclusive options: strike down all of the Affordable Care Act along
with the mandate (the challengers' position), strike down only two
core changes in the way the health insurance system works (the
government position), and strike down nothing but the mandate (the
position of a Court-appointed lawyer).   Not one seemed to be
especially appealing to members of the Court, and each of the three
lawyers who came to the lectern faced tough and often skeptical
questioning, from across the bench.

Congress's capacity to react in a sensible way also came into some
question, particularly from Justice Scalia and, in a way, from Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy, both of whom seemed to harbor doubts that the
lawmakers would be up to the task of working out a new health care law
if this one failed, either totally or partially.  Scalia noted the
problems in the filibuster-prone Senate.  Kennedy wondered whether
expecting Congress to perform was a reference to "the real Congress or
the hypothetical Congress."

(NOTE TO READERS: Because of the need to return to the courtroom for
the second argument, on the constitutionality of the new law's
expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor, this post will be
expanded following that argument.  There will be a separate recap on
the Medicaid hearing.)

More:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/argument-recap-a-lift-for-the-mandate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scotusblog%2FpFXs+%28SCOTUSblog%29

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.