Monday was the preliminarily remarks, attempting to set certain boundaries and assess a few basic questions. Politico provides 5 takeaways, which include
The feds’ taxing power argument may be D.O.A.
The justices don’t seem willing to let the Obama administration have it both ways on the tax argument — a point that one of the conservative justices jumped on.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasn’t buying what the defenders were selling, either. So, Obama’s politicized DOJ lawyers will have to argue that the Mandate is a penalty. Also argued was the law which states that there can be no judicial review until someone is actually forced to pay a tax, which would put off any outcome till 2015. Since the tax argument looks to be going down in flames, expect the “wait till 2015” notion to die on the vine, too.
Today they hear the actual merits of the Mandate arguments
(NY Times) The Supreme Court on Tuesday hears arguments on the central question in the constitutional challenges to President Obama’s health care overhaul law. How it answers the question depends in large part on how the justices decide to frame the core issue.
The law’s challengers — 26 states led by Florida, the National Federation of Independent Business and several individuals — present the central question as one of individual liberty. May the federal government, they ask, compel individuals not engaged in commerce to buy a product, here health insurance, from private companies?
The Obama administration, by contrast, urges the court to answer a different question. May Congress decide, in fashioning a comprehensive response to a national crisis in the health care market, to regulate how people pay for the health care they will almost inevitably need?
So, it is now a “national crisis?” What the Obama admin is arguing is for complete control of citizen’s lives at will. Liberal supporters should remember that this will affect you, too. I know you all think that these types of intrusive laws should apply to “That Person” but not you, much like with higher taxes and globull warming measures, but, yes, they will smack you upside the head, too.
The decision under review, from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, said the health care law overstepped the limits imposed by the commerce clause by regulating inactivity and forcing people into the marketplace.
I’m wondering if the notion that the insurance contracts will be virtually unenforceable will be discussed? Contracts signed under duress, that are not signed voluntarily, are typically deemed invalid. Furthermore, this violates the contract portion of Article I, Section 10, clause 1.
Uninsured Americans each year use $43 billion of health care they cannot pay for, effectively transferring those costs to other American families to the tune of about $1,000 per year, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli said.
So, under Obamacare, the cost will be shifted to Other People. But, the cost will still be there.
In response, Paul D. Clement, representing 26 states challenging the law, said this conception of federal power amounts to “a revolution in the relationship between the central government and the governed.â€
“If this is to remain a system of limited and enumerated federal powers that respects individual liberty, accountability and the residual dignity and sovereignty of the states, the individual mandate cannot stand.â€
Those who support the Mandate do not want any of those, at least for Other People. They’ll also be the first ones to complain when it applies to themselves. And probably Blame Bush or some other Republican. They also refuse to take personal responsibility for their own lives, and want Someone Else to pay for their lives. Consider: in France, people pay approximately 19% directly out of their paychecks for their health care system that is swimming in red ink. Their actual care is poor. Rationing is rampant. They wait in virtual, and real, long lines for service. This is where Obamacare is taking the US.
