Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

like in gore/Bush the Supreme's stole the sacred right to vote w/o justification

You know that the 5 judges who appointed W wrote actual words with actual reasoning as to how they came to their conclusions, right? And had you ever read those words, and been familiar with the prior works of those justices, you would know that those particular words and reasoning were entirely out of character with the rest of their career. You would also know they wrote those words without ever acknowledging that they were being inconsistent, which judges are free to be, especially on the high court.

I'm exaggerating, of course, but you get the idea.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If I were betting my own money, I would bet that they uphold the individual mandate by a 6-3, 7-2 or 8-1 vote. I think Roberts doesn't want his Court to be known for a divisive, highly-charged, partisan 5-4 decision on this issue. I think Kennedy will go with him, and he will try to get Scalia and Alito to go along. Thomas is a lost cause. I tend to think that oral argument doesn't affect the outcome much, in this or any case, so I think people are overreacting to what happened last week.

But I wouldn't bet much money on it.

I would have agreed with you before the argument, even though I agree with you in general about the weight of oral arguments.

But I'm really just reflecting what I've read other say about the argument as I've not read the transcript or listened to the tapes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ironweed

It's going to get blown up 5-4. I can't see any evidence whatsoever that Roberts gives a shit what his court is known for, the right side of the bench has its marching orders / idealogical imperatives / policy mandates to uphold, and they know why they're there. And of course Obama fucked it up out the gate by not going single-payer and instead trying to find some way to keep the insurance companies in business.

I don't know if that's a fuck up or not. Thinking about it in the long term, this proposal would always be put forth as the "less invasive" alternative to single payer. If the court rules it out, then what? Maybe it makes single payer more possible?

Although I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I would have agreed with you before the argument, even though I agree with you in general about the weight of oral arguments.

But I'm really just reflecting what I've read other say about the argument as I've not read the transcript or listened to the tapes.

If you were Justice Roberts and you were pretty sure that you were going to uphold the law, you might want to use the oral argument to give the other side a pretty tough time, if only to ensure that you don't get too much of a cold shoulder at the next Federalist Society clambake.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you were Justice Roberts and you were pretty sure that you were going to uphold the law, you might want to use the oral argument to give the other side a pretty tough time, if only to ensure that you don't get too much of a cold shoulder at the next Federalist Society clambake.

I think the vote assures the clam bake cold shoulder either way.

But I've seen judges rough up counsel for one side and vote the other way before, so who knows.

And I really do think Scalia and Kennedy have some thinking to do about how banning possession of marijuana was "essential" or part of an "overall regulatory scheme" such that it could be reached by the commerce clause but not having health insurance isn't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think the vote assures the clam bake cold shoulder either way.

But I've seen judges rough up counsel for one side and vote the other way before, so who knows.

And I really do think Scalia and Kennedy have some thinking to do about how banning possession of marijuana was "essential" or part of an "overall regulatory scheme" such that it could be reached by the commerce clause but not having health insurance isn't.

Here's what Scalia said in Raich:

Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce."

Obviously, the failure to have an individual mandate could undercut Congress's regulation of health care.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The whole exchange does seem to age well. It almost seems that if Obama can win a newscycle just by baiting the Rs into opening their mouths,

This is truly bizarre. What planet are you on?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why? For once you've actually gone and expressed an opinion on the legal merits, so I'd like to see you back it up.*

Given Scalia's decision in Raich, how could Congress not reasonably see the individual mandate as a necessary and proper means to regulating interstate commerce?

* Of course you won't.

I have not read the case, but do you think his decision would have been different if it was not weed?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

You know that the 5 judges who appointed W wrote actual words with actual reasoning as to how they came to their conclusions, right? And had you ever read those words, and been familiar with the prior works of those justices, you would know that those particular words and reasoning were entirely out of character with the rest of their career. You would also know they wrote those words without ever acknowledging that they were being inconsistent, which judges are free to be, especially on the high court.

I'm exaggerating, of course, but you get the idea.

You mean 7 justices, right?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Here's what Scalia said in Raich:



Obviously, the failure to have an individual mandate could undercut Congress's regulation of health care.

Certainly he could rule against HCR and not beinconflictwith the above. You are better than this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you were Justice Roberts and you were pretty sure that you were going to uphold the law, you might want to use the oral argument to give the other side a pretty tough time,

2. It is pretty common that if you feel an appeals Judge gave your side an easy time at oral argument your side is screwed. They often hit the side they're leaning towards to get better answers to the weaker points.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Obviously, the failure to have an individual mandate could undercut Congress's regulation of health care.

do you think Scalia created a power without limit by that language? anything congress says is necessary to effect a legitimate goal is therefor fine? First, the mandate was not needed. Congress would normally tax to raise needed funds. The only reason it didn't here was it was too cowardly to admit the great huge costs it was going to impose.

But by your reasoning anything Congress cared to do to raise money to pay for its boondoggle is a-okay, as long as the boondoggle is fine? That's the intelligent argument you want to make? Fuck sakes Ty.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Certainly he could rule against HCR and not beinconflictwith the above. You are better than this.

I was dodging cuz I had no idea what the libs were saying was in conflict. but that is the most pathetic argument I believe I've ever heard here.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you think Scalia created a power without limit by that language? anything congress says is necessary to effect a legitimate goal is therefor fine? First, the mandate was not needed. Congress would normally tax to raise needed funds. The only reason it didn't here was it was too cowardly to admit the great huge costs it was going to impose.

But by your reasoning anything Congress cared to do to raise money to pay for its boondoggle is a-okay, as long as the boondoggle is fine? That's the intelligent argument you want to make? Fuck sakes Ty.

And he wonders why you don't engage. He should just be thankful for where you've gotten him in his career.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

You mean 7 justices, right?

How are you counting 7 votes on one side in Bush v Gore?