The Supreme Court & Obamacare

[Admiral Yi]

Sotomayor coming across very well.  Probably the best so far of the lefties.

Anyone else reading/listening to the arguments?

[CountDeMoney]

Anyone else reading/listening to the arguments?

Why? We already know the final score:  5-4.

[Admiral Yi]

Why?

Learn something new?  Gain insights into the Constitutional arguments?

Now I'm into Carvin arguing against, and all of a sudden the conservative justices seem more sympathetic to the yes side.

[Admiral Yi]

The liberal justices keep raising Social Security as a supporting argument for mandated activity and neither of the no guys is doing a very good job of knocking it down.

[Admiral Yi]

At page 105 Kennedy starts tipping his hand for a possible uphold vote.

Man, this is seriously gripping shit.

[Barrister]

At page 105 Kennedy starts tipping his hand for a possible uphold vote.

Man, this is seriously gripping shit.

Seriously?

I'm a goddamn lawyer, and even my eyes glaze over at reading 100+ page SCC decisions.

[Jacob]

Sotomayor coming across very well.  Probably the best so far of the lefties.

Anyone else reading/listening to the arguments?

Got a link?

[Admiral Yi]

Seriously?

I'm a goddamn lawyer, and even my eyes glaze over at reading 100+ page SCC decisions.

Seriously.  This is not a decision, it's a tribal council meeting around the fire.  Great drama.

I like the fact that the only currency is brute reason.


Yakie:  look on the previous page at St. Jibber Jabber's post for alink.

[Jacob]

[crazy canuck]

I'm a goddamn lawyer, and even my eyes glaze over at reading 100+ page SCC decisions.

Man are you in the wrong business.  These are the submissions.  You know the stuff you are supposed to live for.

[Kleves]

Does anyone know if the provisions in question are severable from the rest of the healthcare law?

[Sheilbh]

Here's a good page for analysis:
http://www.scotusblog.com/

Does anyone know if the provisions in question are severable from the rest of the healthcare law?

The Court'll hear about that tomorrow:

WEDNESDAY: "SEVERABILITY"

Question: If the individual mandate falls, must the rest of the law fall too? The court will devote 90 minutes to this argument.

Background: The mandate is the most prominent piece of Mr Obama's health reform. However the law is gargantuan. Its 2,700 pages cover everything from calorie counts on menus to drug rebates for the elderly.

Mr Obama's argument: Should the mandate be overturned, only two other provisions should fall with it. The reform requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and bars them from hiking fees for the ill. Mr Obama's lawyers concede that the mandate is necessary for these requirements to work—without the mandate, individuals would simply wait until they got sick to buy insurance. This would prove disastrous for insurers. However the rest of the law should stand. The states may not fight provisions of the health law that do not apply to them.

Challengers' argument: Health reform sought to achieve near universal health coverage without increasing the deficit. The mandate was the main way to do this, but the entire law served this goal. If the mandate falls, the entire law should fall, too.

Court-appointed lawyer's argument: The Supreme Court appointed an impartial lawyer, Bartow Farr, to argue that the rest of the law should remain if the mandate falls. Mr Farr contends that the provisions outside of the mandate are "perfectly lawful". Congress would rather have the law without the mandate than no health law at all.

Analysis: The insurance industry supported the law because of the mandate. The requirement that individuals buy insurance balanced the myriad, onerous rules on insurers. The Eleventh Circuit's ruling was insurers' worst nightmare. The appellate court struck down the mandate but upheld every other part of the law.

[dps]

The liberal justices keep raising Social Security as a supporting argument for mandated activity and neither of the no guys is doing a very good job of knocking it down.

Payments into the Social Security system are taxes, though (even if the law was crafted to make it look like they aren't), and only a few nuts question the power of the government to levy taxes, at least post-Sixteenth Amendment.

[Admiral Yi]

Payments into the Social Security system are taxes, though (even if the law was crafted to make it look like they aren't), and only a few nuts question the power of the government to levy taxes, at least post-Sixteenth Amendment.

Claro, which is why I was puzzled by the inability of shysters to make that argument.

[Kleves]

Striking down only the mandate would be the worst of all possible worlds, wouldn't it? Would Congress/the President have the balls to repeal the popular elements (like prohibiting discrimination against those with preexisting conditions) that the mandate was meant to finance?