Supreme Court News


Today is the second day of Supreme Court hearing on Obama’s nationalized healthcare. These hearings SHOULD have been televised for the benefit of the public who will be victimized by the Unconstitutional usurpation of power by our Federal “gubmint” thieves but alas…someone is FORCED to sneak a cell phone into these hallowed halls of injustice. 

 

Therefore, my source for this information is an unknown blogger with a patriotic spirit and the information contained herein cannot be verified at this time. Blog here. I will bullet point pertinent information received from this individual (quoted verbatim for the most part).  

  • Both Bryer and Ginsburg are saying, if lefty lawyer Virrilli’s argument has merit,  it would be constitutional
    to require death/burial insurance…because everyone will die
    eventually.

  • Judge Roberts is comparing health
    insurance to fire/police services which people don’t know they need
    until an emergency.

  • The uniform response by lefty lawyer Verrilli is
    that the issue is “market regulation” (not
    constitution)

  • Chief Justice Roberts asked Verrilii if people should be
    “required” to carry cellphones so they can dial “911”
    faster.

  • Verilli is trying to say healthcare is “unique.”

  • Roberts
    pushes Verrilli that cars and food are just a means to an end and so
    do different than insurance. 

  • Halfway through the mandate argument.
    From reporter “it is clear that the four liberal members of SC
    will vote in favor of the mandate. 

  • No fifth vote yet. 

  • The
    conservatives all express skepticism some significant.They doubt
    there is any “limiting” (of government powers) principles. 

  • Alito is the most openly skeptical.

In Summary:  The first hour of the Supreme
Court oral arguments related to the constitutionality of the
individual health insurance mandate.  Solicitor General Donald
Verrilli presented the government’s argument in favor of mandated (forced) participation in nationalized healthcare by all Americans.   The good news for Verrilli, the government,
and the supporters of the mandate is that the four liberal Justices
asked relatively few questions, and the questions were largely
friendly. The bad news is that there is no apparent fifth vote in
support of the constitutionality of the law. 

 

When the Solicitor
General argued that the mandate does not require people to purchase
health care, but instead merely regulates when and how they will pay
for that care, Justice Kennedy seemed skeptical, asking whether
Congress’s power to regulate commerce allows it to CREATE commerce
that they will then REGULATE. 

 

Other conservative Justices – Chief Justice
Roberts, and Justices Scalia and Alito – also seemed skeptical of
the government’s arguments.  They focused on whether there is a limiting
principle:  for instance they wanted Virrilli  to explain whether Congress can
force individuals to buy things other than health insurance,
including cars and broccoli, or whether the government can require
that individuals exercise.  Alito questioned whether forced participation essentially required healthy
people “to subsidize services that will be received by somebody
else.”

 

Once the opposition gets it’s opportunity to challenge nationalized healthcare, it will be interesting to see whether the
Justices’ maintain the same line of questioning or switch to devil’s advocate. 

 

Paul Clements excellent argument against ObamaCare here.

 

Additional news on today’s Supreme Court hearings can be found in the Wall Street Journal.

 

From Twitter:  

“WSJ’s Kendall: Kagan defends Verrilli, says young people
who are subsidizers of the market will be the subsidized when older
[via Twitter]

WSJ’s Kendall: Roberts says if the court approved of
the mandate, it may be hard to set limitations on what Congress can
do [via Twitter]

, , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *