Obamacare goes to Supreme Court Monday

[Pressing-On]

The justices will decide whether to kill or keep the largest expansion in the nation's social safety net in more than four decades.

I wonder how the outcome will affect the election, i.e. Romneycare/Obamacare?

Interesting words by George Will, today, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Interesting what he says in the last paragraph - "regulating the mental activity of choosing".

WILL: I really disagree with Terry on this. I think the Supreme Court is composed of nine intelligent, conscientious judges who are prepared to judge in this case. Why did they take it? Because the circuits are in conflict, and the circuits -- some important circuit judges say -- in very persuasive opinions -- that portions of the law -- at least two portions -- are unconstitutional, the Medicaid expansion, which is a burden that eviscerates (ph) federalism and, of course, the mandate.

They're going to decide -- try at long last to see if there is any limiting principle on the ability of Congress to act simply because it asserts that whatever they're regulating has a substantial impact on interstate commerce. If there is no limiting principle, then the Madisonian architecture of limited government is gone and the federal government has an unlimited...

(Stephanopoulos cuts him off)

ROBERTS: (OFF-MIKE) Commerce Clause, which, of course, says that the Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. But the -- and everything now is considered interstate commerce.

WILL: That's the problem.

WILL: I think Matt may be right about that, but, again, I think this is a serious argument about serious constitutional issues. Independent of the fact that the public doesn't like it or the fact that it is the president's signature achievement.

To the argument that health care is unique because everyone uses it, everyone uses food, shelter, clothing, energy, transportation. This is a comprehensive argument, if you let it loose in this case.

Second, a judge has actually said, well, we're not regulating the inactivity of not buying health insurance. We're regulating the mental activity of choosing not to buy health insurance. When you get into this kind of Orwellian language, you're doing something wrong.

[RandyWayne]

What is sad is that the case will decided either way by a 5-4 vote. You already know which four judges will side WITH it, regardless of how unconstitutional it is -their just liberals.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

What is sad is that the case will decided either way by a 5-4 vote. You already know which four judges will side WITH it, regardless of how unconstitutional it is -their just liberals.

I heard all week it would be a 5-4 in favor of overturning it. Today I was hearing the opposite. Pretty typical of George Stephanopoulos to cut off Will at this point in the conversation - "If there is no limiting principle, then the Madisonian architecture of limited government is gone and the federal government has an unlimited..."

Many wanted Kagen to be recused and Clarence Thomas because his wife received money as a lobbyist for Heritage Foundation being against the Affordable Healthcare Law.

They were going to have the debate/conversation anyway. So, I think they might as well stay seated and debate it in court.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

What is sad is that the case will decided either way by a 5-4 vote. You already know which four judges will side WITH it, regardless of how unconstitutional it is -their just liberals.

And another point that the Supreme Court usually rules in favor of the sitting President. I wonder what might be some important cases where they didn't?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And another point that the Supreme Court usually rules in favor of the sitting President. I wonder what might be some important cases where they didn't?

When Thomas Jefferson was president. Marbury v Madison. The Court under John Marshall ruled in Marbury's favor, so, against a sitting president. Jefferson and Madison acquiesced to the Court's ruling.

It was a landmark decision because it set the precedent for the Supreme Court being able to decide if a congressional act was or was not constitutional.

Can't think of anything in recent years, offhand.

[CC1]

I have a bad feeling about this case at the Supreme. I hope I am wrong.

[Jermyn Davidson]

What would be great is if the Supreme Court can rule with a surgical knife and not an "all-or-nothing" approach. I am just not sure if it is their place to perform surgery on this very good intentioned, but poorly written law.

Something needs to be done about healthcare in America, but the current Healthcare Reform would do more harm than good, as it stands right now.

[Pressing-On]

3 days of oral argument:

Monday: The arguments will focus on the Anti-Injunction Act issue.

Tuesday: The individual mandate

Wednesday: The severability issue and the Medicaid issue will be addressed.

Amicus brief filed by American Center for Law & Justice, 119 members of Congress and more than 144,000 supporters - (pdf)

http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rack...rida-v-hhs.pdf

[Pressing-On]

The Supreme Court has posted the audio of Obamacare, Day One:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...=11-398-Monday

[Pressing-On]

TRANSCRIPT:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86774567/T...are-reform-law