Another train wreck at the court for Obamacare
E. Thomas McClanahanThe Supreme Court session Tuesday on the constitutionality of the individual mandate was described by several commentators as a train wreck for the government. Wednesday’s arguments on severability — whether the rest of the law can remain if the mandate is yanked — went about as well. Or maybe worse, judging by Jennifer Rubin’s iluminating post.
In the key bit, Scalia asks ones of the lawyers whether — if the mandate goes down — he expects the court to go through the entire 2700-page law to decide, section by section, which part to keep and which to toss.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? [On cruel and unusal punishment] You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
Rubin closes: “I’ll be candid: Until reading the briefs on this issue, I thought this was a long shot for the challengers. It seemed a stretch to take down the whole statute. After reading the briefs and the transcript of the argument, I think this is among the easier issues in the case.”
We’ll see. We’ve been reminded that the justices don’t always vote the way they hint in their questions. But even commentators on the left have observed that the government’s arguments were repeatedly attacked. Which means this whole thing, this 2700 pages of leftwing central planning, could well go down in flames.
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year, 2 months agoI can think of no other act that would insure freedom from federal government tryanny then tossing the entire bill ET.
This was an attempt by the D’s to grab 1/6th of the American economy and move it into the federal govt. This would of course create millions of little bureaucrats going about their daily routine of rules and regulations and producing NOTHING. They would, however, be consistent D voters.
It will be interesting to see the arguments the lib justices will use for saying other parts of the bill should stand. It will show their understanding of the Constitution.
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year, 2 months agoAnd of course the House yesterday defeated the big 0’s budget 414-0. That’s right, not one D voted for jimmy ii’s budget.
What a “leader”….
Mark Hastert
1 year, 2 months agoI kinda wish they would find against the law on several levels. It would take the political issue off the table for the Republicans and put them on the spot to show us what “replace” would look like (they’re clueless). Then we’d get a chance to do what Obama first offered, let anyone who wants to buy into a federal program or stay private. It’s simple, easy, and already in place. All we need to do is clone Medicare for the general population. No constitutional issues, preserve the private system for those who want it, win-win!
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year, 2 months agoYou don’t get it mark…. As the Ryan budget details, we want SMALLER govt., not your brand of ever growing govt.
We want govt. out of healthcare. Medicaid can be block granted. Medicare, for those 55 and under can be converted to vouchers which are used in the PRIVATE sector. For those neanderthals that want to keep Medicare, have at it at a higher cost of course…. But, the vast majority of people will opt for a better private plan with more benefits then one sucking off the govt. teat….
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year, 2 months agoBTW mark, are you libs going to even pass a budget this year in the Senate, or keep your record intact for the entire jimmy ii presidency????
what a “leader” the big 0 is…
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year, 2 months agoThe R’s have passed theirs mark, time for you libs to pass SOMETHING, isn’t it????
Mark Hastert
1 year, 2 months ago“As the Ryan budget details, we want SMALLER govt., not your brand of ever growing govt.”
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/another-train-wreck-court-obamacare/#storylink=cpy
…careful of what you wish for my old retiree friend. The government, by way of Rep Ryan, is picking winners and losers… and congratulations, you fall into the latter category.
Ryan’s budget increases deficit spending and we get no no balanced budget until the 2040’s. Why? because he’s taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Talk about class warfare!! Ryan’s plan and the Republican vote is a gift to the Dems with an big red bow. He can’t have run this by the powers that be. Add to that the vote to continue goodies for big oil and you have a ready made campaign ad. Big oiol is gouging you at the pump and with tax dollars courtesy of the Greedy Old Party!
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year, 2 months agomark, aka myw, do you ever get tired of being proven wrong?
The Ryan budget CLEARLY states no changes for those of us over 55. What do you not understand about that statement, since you obviously have not read the plan?
It also projects 3 TRILLION less in debt then jimmy ii, and somehow you equate that to losing.
I truly do not understand how you libs think, but you are sooooooooooooooooooo much smarter :)