Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Obamacare - #3766 - Recap: Obama's Healthcare Law at the Supreme Court - Day 3 - Wall Street Journal (2) VIDEO: Paul Clement: What's at Stake Here is the Basic Nature of our Government (3) Scalia on Severability - Making us Read this Entire Bill Would be Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Hot Air

The Supreme Court on Wednesday had the last of its three days of arguments over the Obama health-care law, with justices set to weigh what happens to the rest of the overhaul if the court strikes down the requirement that individuals carry health insurance. We have reporters at the court, who are sending in updates on the action. The morning session started at 10 a.m. ET, and the afternoon session started at 1 p.m. Sort by:  OldestNewest
9:35 amWednesday's Argumentsby Brent Kendall - Add a Comment
Wednesday morning the court is hearing 90 minutes of argument on what should happen if the insurance mandate--the requirement that individuals carry health insurance--is nullified. The law's challengers say the entire law should then be declared void. 
 9:39 am Wednesday's Argumentsby Brent Kendall - Add a Comment - It's a key question, particularly considering what happened a day earlier. At Tuesday's arguments, the court's conservative justices sharply challenged the insurance mandate, raising the prospect of a 5-4 decision finding it unconstitutional. If you haven't already, read our day 2 live blog and article.  Read more..........


Paul Clement: What's at Stake Here is the Basic Nature of our Government - He’s just 45 years old, a former Solicitor General under Bush, and gave the argument of his life yesterday on the most momentous day for small government before the Supreme Court in decades. At this point, I’d say he’s a mortal lock to be nominated by a future Republican president. So watch the clip. In a few years, this guy will have a lot of influence over your civil rights and obligations.  I keep thinking about Kennedy’s point yesterday that the mandate “changes the relationship between the individual and the government in a very fundamental way.” That’s the core of what the Constitution does — it defines the relationship between individual citizens (and the states) and the federal government. He was basically accusing the White House of trying to change the constitutional order.  Read more..........

Scalia on Severability: Making us Read this Entire Bill Would be Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Hot Air - Via the Washington Free Beacon, the oral argument laugh line du jour and further evidence that Scalia, whom the left once viewed as a potential vote to uphold the mandate, looks set to drop an atomic bomb on the whole scheme. The unspoken punchline is that Congress didn’t want to read the bill either (right, Nancy?), which is how this landmark boondoggle with a dubious constitutional novelty at its core somehow ended up … without a severability clause. That was today’s subject — if the mandate is struck down, does the rest of this thing have to die with it or can other provisions of the law be salvaged? Congress almost always adds a section about that when it drafts a bill. It forgot this time. Oops.  Two clips here, one of Scalia and the other a not very satisfying set of audio highlights from the AP. I think Sotomayor’s point is fair: If the Court creates an insurance “death spiral” by knocking down the mandate but leaving everything else intact, there’s nothing stopping Congress from eliminating that death spiral by simply repealing the rest of the statute and starting over.  Read more...........

No comments:

Post a Comment