Obamacare Faces Its Own Death Panel Before Supreme Court… And It’s Losing
Posted by Andrea Ryan on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 11:42 PM
By: Andrea Ryan
Artist rendering of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. speaking in front of the Supreme Court justices. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren)
Yesterday, the Supreme Court began hearing three days of arguments over the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Day one brought the determination of whether the individual mandate should be considered a tax or a penalty, and whether the suit over a tax that has not been imposed, yet, would be thrown out based on the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867. But, the absurd suggestion that the mandate penalty is really a tax was laughed right out of Court and the issue of the Act is, now, irrelevant.
Today, brought the fight for the heart and soul of our country…whether the mandate provision of Obamacare violates the Constitution, or is allowed to, as Justice Kennedy said, “fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state”. The questions asked by the Supreme Court justices suggested a 4-5 division ruling in favor of a complete rejection of Obama and his Left’s egregious overreach into our lives and our liberty.
Fox News has excerpts from today’s hearing.
The Heritage Foundation had an excellent summary of today, along with an interview of one of its authors, Todd Gaziano.
The packed hearing room of the Supreme Court was a who’s who of lawyers and political leaders this morning, all of whom witnessed what was an undeniably bad day for the Obama Administration and its defense of the President’s health care law. Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, attorneys representing those challenging Obamacare, battled Solicitor General Donald Verrelli, who was defending the law, and urged the Supreme Court to find the individual mandate in ObamaCare unconstitutional. Present in the courtroom were about twelve state attorneys general, including those from Utah, North Dakota, Florida, Texas, and Virginia, as well Eric Holder, Kathleen Sibelius and U.S. Senators such as Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and John Kerry.
The hostile questioning for Clement and Carvin from the liberal justices, particularly Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, left little doubt as to their collective view that requiring individuals to buy health insurance was within the Commerce Power of Congress – an argument that liberals advanced in defense of the individual mandate’s constitutionality. And at times when Verrelli was faltering in answering tough questions from other more skeptical justices like Antonin Scalia, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer would step in to help him, posing arguments in favor of the government as if they were questions.
Verrelli’s chief argument was that the health care market is unique and that everyone will have to participate in it at some point, so the government is justified in requiring people to buy insurance for it now. But there’s a difference between regulating commerce that’s already happening and forcing individual Americans to enter into commerce – in this case, the health care market – so that Congress can better regulate it. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor seemingly could not accept a meaningful difference between the two.
If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power. When Verilli was asked a question on that subject, he had a difficult time answering. Justice Alito pointed out that everyone eventually dies and faces burial expenses – and under the government’s rationale, couldn’t it compel all Americans to buy burial insurance so that others are not stuck with the costs?
There were several clear indications that the government may have a high hill to climb in defending its position. Justice Kennedy, who is often seen as the swing vote, indicated through his questions that the government may have a “heavy burden” to show that what it is doing is constitutional since it is compelling people to enter into commerce. Although Justice Kennedy did express some concern about the challengers’ arguments, his most telling concern was with the scope of the government’s position. At two different times, Justice Kennedy stated that the government’s theory would “fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state.” That may be very telling indeed. Justice Scalia raised familiar questions about the ability of the government to compel you to eat broccoli to stay healthy, or to join an exercise club for the same reason since unhealthy people impose such great costs on our economic system, putting to rest the concern that he was bound by his position in an earlier case to support the mandate.
The Solicitor General’s chief problem throughout the arguments was that he was unable to give a clear, simple, and easily understood answer to this question: If Congress has the power to compel the purchase of an insurance policy from a private company, what limiting factor is there on congressional power under the Commerce Clause? He was asked that same question more than once by different justices and never came up with a reasonable or principled constitutional distinction. Justice Scalia admitted that he came up with distinctions, but denied they were based on constitutional principles.
The funniest answer in the two hours (although there was no laughter in the courtroom) was when Verrelli claimed that Congress had passed the ObamaCare law to deal with a serious problem “after long study and careful deliberation.” Anyone who knows the history of the frenzied and swift nature of the passage of ObamaCare, when almost none of the members of Congress knew what was in the 2,700 page bill, realizes what an absurd statement that was.
Click here for The Foundry’s audio from today’s hearing.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the states are unconstitutionally coerced into participating in the Medicaid program, and, also, the severability clause. Will the entire law be thrown out? Or, only those parts deemed by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional?
So far, the legal arguments of the Right have centered around liberty, Constitutional principles, and the expansion of federal power. The “legal” arguments of the Left have been…well, it’s the right thing to do.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – Benjamin Franklin
UPDATE: Hallelujah!
ADVERTISEMENT
`
grizzlygovfan commented:
Criminology proves that the crime suppression effect of the armed portion of the public is just about on the order of the crime suppression effect of our police agencies, so people who refuse to buy guns are part of the crime control problem. We must mandate that they buy guns and tax them if they don’t.
Here is another purchase to mandate and impose a tax on if people refuse to buy:
According to CDC, Pets can decrease your: Blood pressure, Cholesterol levels, Triglyceride levels, Feelings of loneliness.
This obviously affects health care directly when people don’t voluntarily participate. Also according to CDC: Pets can increase your: Opportunities for exercise and outdoor activities, Opportunities for socialization. Maybe we should mandate that everyone buy a hunting dog, a rifle, a shotgun, and a hand gun?
Ed commented:
Why does the “swing” vote always have to be conservative? I’m so sick of the flaming a-hole liberals who never seem to bend when a major issue like this comes up before the court. It’s about time one of them did what was right for our country instead of being a brainwashed Marxist zombie. It’s the least they could do.
S. Wolf commented:
Hopefully the SC will be the death panel for Husseincare.
Opus#6@AmericanPerspective commented:
#1 lefties would scream with the shoe on the other foot. You mean this power to coerce could be used against them? Guns and dogs for all?
Rules are only for their enemies. Consider the Obamacare waivers.
Opaobie commented:
Was the Solicitor General wearing a hoodie? How about the four stooges…er, leftist Justices?
Redwine commented:
I loved hearing Verrelli’s incoherent babbling answers. If you really want to hear a terrific exposition of the proceedings, just listen to today’s podcast of Mark Levin’s shows. Better yet, listen to him everyday.
BS61 commented:
I pray everyday that the court overturns this since the GOP are wimps that will never repeal!
Skinner commented:
The vetting of Obama in the sunlight is just wonderful to witness.
The timing is perfect.
Obama’s lies and his cockaroaches can’t handle the bright lights of the public square.
This is all becoming a perfect example of how our Founders firewalls work.
The Democrat Party will never hold a majority in Congress or see the WH for the next 16 years at least.
.
Robert commented:
So-called Justice Kagan has no business hearing this case, due to her previous work for the Obama administration. As the previous solicitor general, she worked for passage of the bill and helped to form its legal framework, dubious though that framework may be.
Emails show that she was in favor of passage of the bill, and that calls into question he ability to judge impartially. Of course, being a liberal, she would not be impartial to begin with, but that is beside the point.
No doubt that if a conservative Justice were to hear a case on which he had already worked, the media would be howling like hyenas for him to recuse himself from hearing.
Militant Conservative commented:
It’s about power over your life and control over
Your money. Neither party will give this up.
We’re circling the drain of socialism, both parties
Seek the same goal. Revolution is inevitable.
Powder is dry
Estragon commented:
It’s almost impossible to discern a Justice’s vote by his questions at oral arguments. Since the cottage industry arose of trying, Justices have interspersed a fair number of false hints, much like bluffing at poker, just to foil the diviners.
@ #12 – you do realize that’s not a haiku, right? and makes no sense whatever as anything else?
Dawgonitt commented:
Money/Evil will win the day regardless of right and wrong. Obama and his Demonic Minions from the Left, Hollywood, Communist’s, Liberal Democrats, Muslims and their Army of Useful Idiots, Unions, Sodomites, Minority Racists, The Guilty White, Felons/Criminals, Atheists, Kool-Aid Drunk Morons, America Haters and the Dead Voters outnumber the people with Conviction, Integrity & Faith. Swing Vote Kennedy will be a Very (Monetarily) Wealthy Man. The Majority of the People in Washington are Soulless and are Tools of the Devil.
Glass is Half Empty Annology. I hope I’m wrong.
Sickofobama commented:
Be optimistically cautious.
You’re just hearing oral arguments.
The justices have to mull over the crap of a bill yet.
I am hopeful.
I will pray.
But it’s not in the bag yet.
Tjexcite commented:
All Part of the plan.
Get the crap bill toss so that it angers the base like never before. So the $5 dollar gas and 9% Unemployment don’t matter the activist judges made health care illegal. Re-elect Obama so he can have the “flexibility” for a single payer.
Clutch commented:
Double-tap this beast, cremate the remains and dump the ashes in a landfill, just to make sure (the Obamacare monstrosity, for any clue-challenged trolls).
sarah2012 commented:
Don’t let the justices’ questions during oral argument fool you. Sometimes, by their questions it may appear they are favoring an anti-Obamacare position, but really they pretty much made up their minds & will just ask their individual clerks to write an opinion that is in fact agenda driven…you can always find some case to manipulate to support a particular bias. Rest assured, the Lib Justices will not abandon Obama & there is always that conservative appointed judge that jumps ship to a leftist side to prove his independence. It;s hardly ever, that a Lib judge moves to the right. Sadly, Obamacare is still alive & kicking in spite of the sorry defense.
`