It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Constitutional Thunderdome": Day Two of Obamacare Oral Arguments

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   


I still think this is going to be a 5-4 decision either way, but I think atleast for the individual mandate the vote is going to end up swinging 5-4 on it being unconstitutional. If the individual mandate is struck down than the whole house of cards goes with it.
edit on 3/27/2012 by FSBlueApocalypse because: I guess FDR managed to pack the court in my head




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
When did we add 2 Justices?


If the individual mandate is struck down than the whole house of cards goes with it.


Not necessarily. There will also be consideration of severability.
edit on 27-3-2012 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
When did we add 2 Justices?


I guess FDR must've packed the court in my head



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Kennedy is the swing vote. The hearings thus far make that crystal clear. Everyone else has made up thier minds more or less.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
here's my outlook for the SCOTUS deliberation....


in the final/closing argument the Øbama Team will pull the ~'Paulson Option'~

and tell the 9 wise Sages...If compulsory Health Care coverage is not found legal
then all hell will break loose in the country & Martial Law will have to be imposed (just like in the 2008 'showdown' to establish the revolving-door TARP money pool)


think i'm kidding ??



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Severability arguments come up tomorrow, how exciting!

It's a shame the solicitor general is so...bad at arguing. Some months ago I heard an interview with Alito who hinted that the law was constitutional, but we just have to wait and see. I believe the decisions will come down in June.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I am not holding my breath the verdict will end up going in Obamas favor hell hes stack the Scotus in his favor.

Granted there have been some good arguments made agianst Obama care but doesn't matter.

Even the pundits say oral arguments do not really matter.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I was more confident that the Health Care Bill would be upheld before hearing the arguments today.

The Obama attorney didn't do a great job


Guess we will see what happens tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Unconstitutional will be the decision of the day.

Back to the drawing board.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

The Obama attorney didn't do a great job


Two observations...

1) "Obama attorney"??? The Solicitor General represents the government. Who is the government? Us. Not Obama. www.justice.gov...

2) I don't care how good you are, a turd is a turd is a turd, and it is impossible to present any valid legal case for this turd. BSing the media and the People is one thing, but once you have to go before the court it is another thing, entirely.
edit on 27-3-2012 by WTFover because: link



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Yes...the solicitor general that Obama appointed.

Semantics...weak.


The law should have been written differently....I have said this since it passed. But I was hoping that it would still pass under the Commerce Clause...still might...but not looking good.

We will see.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Yes...the solicitor general that Obama appointed.

Semantics...weak.


Yeah, you would be OK with a solicitor general who ignores the rule of law and just does whatever Obama commands. And if he's a good little boy, he could be a shoe in for a justice position, if one were to be available before Jan. 20, 2013. (Elena Kegan).



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
well, the SCOTUS decision will be revealed in June ... just in time for the candidates to be facing off with one another (Barry & Mitt) ?

Mitt is being touted as the grand father of healthcare reform


I see SCOTUS as denying the forced participation in whats known as ØbamaCare
but if another way can be found to enroll the masses, on a voluntary basis, the mechanisms of the ACA law
would be approved


i see the new enrollment procedure to be started whenever an individual goes to the hospital ER with their hand out and claiming to be indigent... they will have to sign on for the ACA Law (ØbamaCare) and create a health care account on which they will pay the debt with their monthly pro-rated Premium.



Barry & the planning committee staff wanted a big revenue stream of Premiums at the onset of the health reform insurance program... but they will not get that set up---- it will cost the govt Billions to set the program in motion on an individual basis...a trickle-in revenue stream


i still want to hear the status of the thousands of companies and corporations that have already got approved 'waivers' to Not have to participate in the ACA... will that waiver be transferrable or like a 'get out of jail' free card



ACA :

Health Reform In Supreme Court: End Of Affordable Care Act?
Huffington Post‎ - by Mike Sacks‎ - 6 hours ago



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
In most cases the supreme court historical decisions has been in favor of the constiution interpretations.

With that say I know that "the mandate" will be striked down.

If every body remember back in the 90s when Hillary clinton was trying to push universal health care for all the reason it didn't took hold was because the Republicans pushed the constiutionality of it as an excuse.

And Hillary universal health care wasn't even mandatory and didn't have a mandatory clause.

Remember people that it was a close doors agreetment between lobbyist pimps from big pharma and health care insurance along with some whores of congress that agree on the "mandatory:" clause.

Now if the supreme court by pass the constiutionality of the mandatory clause and favor the insurance companies then we have agree that our supreme court is as corrupted as the governemnt we have today.

Then we can say that the corporate dictatorship in the nation owns the supreme court also.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


This is so hilarious it makes me puke, you know why? because it was the Republicans that flaunted the so call constitutionality of the universal health care when Hilary try to push it, but then again for the right amount of money the Republican whores wanted to sell Americans into servitude and slavery to the big health care insurance by mandate.

Funny.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 



i still want to hear the status of the thousands of companies and corporations that have already got approved 'waivers' to Not have to participate in the ACA... will that waiver be transferrable or like a 'get out of jail' free card


Those waivers are temporary and for one very specific portion of the bill...mini-med insurance plans....all the waivers expire in 2014.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by St Udio
 



i still want to hear the status of the thousands of companies and corporations that have already got approved 'waivers' to Not have to participate in the ACA... will that waiver be transferrable or like a 'get out of jail' free card


Those waivers are temporary and for one very specific portion of the bill...mini-med insurance plans....all the waivers expire in 2014.


But you must wonder if "new" waivers will show up out of nowhere.

Some we never would have even dreamed about.

Taxpayers beware !!

YOU will be the "single payer"



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I was more confident that the Health Care Bill would be upheld before hearing the arguments today.

The Obama attorney didn't do a great job


Guess we will see what happens tomorrow.


Yah...I was kind of suprised by the fumbling of the Solicitor General. I have heard interviews and Bios about the guy...he is crazy bright and the SCOTUS both left and right knows him well. Some of the Conservative Justices worked with him before they arrived at the bench...widely respected by all...big let down thus far. I wonder if he is laying some traps, inviting hubris from opposing counsel. Cuz this guy is brilliant, we just aren't seeing it thus far.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I was more confident that the Health Care Bill would be upheld before hearing the arguments today.

The Obama attorney didn't do a great job


Guess we will see what happens tomorrow.


Yah...I was kind of suprised by the fumbling of the Solicitor General. I have heard interviews and Bios about the guy...he is crazy bright and the SCOTUS both left and right knows him well. Some of the Conservative Justices worked with him before they arrived at the bench...widely respected by all...big let down thus far. I wonder if he is laying some traps, inviting hubris from opposing counsel. Cuz this guy is brilliant, we just aren't seeing it thus far.


I think it's an act.

He is doing this for a reason.

"Traps" perhaps, but are the opposing attorneys really that dumb ?
(well maybe
)

If this is a tank job, he will be the scapegoat.
(possibly set up that way)

Keep in mind that the biggest political and financial boondoggles in history
were made by some of the smartest and most intellectual people in the world !

The average dumb bell doesn't screw up a whole country !!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





As the argument went on, Verrilli appeared to get more comfortable with his brief. But was it too little too late?


In short, probably not. The worst-kept secret in appellate litigation is that oral arguments don’t matter that much. Despite the panicked reactions of some legal experts like Jeffrey Toobin, most of the decision-making process centers around past court precedent and the briefs submitted by the parties and amici curiae (or “friends of the court”). In any case, the justices’ questions are far more telling than an attorney’s eloquence (although by that measure, too, the law’s defenders didn’t find very much comfort Tuesday).

www.thedailybeast.com...

Maybe we should be looking at who filed "friends of the court" briefs? I heard the other day that the number of briefs set an all time record.

Record Number of Amicus Briefs Filed in Health Care Cases


The filings include six on the Anti-Injunction Act,
79 on the individual mandate (most of them opposed to the mandate),
27 on severability,
23 on the Medicaid expansion
and one calling for Justice Elena Kagan’s recusal.
The figures exclude briefs filed by the two court-appointed lawyers who will argue on severability and the Anti-Injunction Act.

The filings come from interest groups, trade associations, state and federal lawmakers, economists, historians and law professors.

go.bloomberg.com...

THere are some very interesting Amicus Briefs...Though in number they lean toward throwing out the mandate, the ones that are well written, supported and organizations that are known by the court are in favor of Keeping the mandate..

Like the AARP, Constitutional Law and Economics Professors, Health Law Professors, Constitutional Law Scholars all making strong legal arguments for the mandate.

List of Amicus Briefs here...

go.bloomberg.com...

After reviewing the Amicus Briefs, I predict that the Mandate will be upheld...feel free to hold me to my prediction come June when the ruling is issued...it will be 5-4 with Kennedy swinging to support it



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join