I plan to listen to as much of the oral arguments this week as I have time for. I’ve listened to a few of these before – at the Circuit Court level too – and they’re surprisingly engaging, even for a non-lawyer. There is, in this country particularly, majesty to the law. Listening to the petitioners make their cases and then engage with the justices in the finer points of the law and the Constitution gives one an appreciation of how it is we have, no matter our politics, remained ‘a nation of laws’ for two-plus centuries, a nation that’s chosen to be governed by the law
Today’s argument is whether the Court can even hear the case against the mandate yet, since it’s not been enacted. It’s possible they’ll shut it down for now and will return to it after the law goes into effect. Something about you can’t challenge that which does not yet exist in fact.
If, however, they decide that yes, the case can go forward – which I think they will (why else schedule three days for argument) – the meat of the argument starts tomorrow, when they actually take up the matter of the constitutionality of the law.
I think they’ll uphold it. And I think they’ll do it by better than 5-4. It could even be 7-2, with just Alito and Thomas against. Which, of course, will mean the end of freedom.
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
I’m sticking with a narrow vote UPHOLDING the mandate which is ACTUALLY a tax penalty……
Congress DOES have the right to levy this under the Commerce clause…
Politically I’d think that the Supreme’s won’t want to OVERTURN the ENTIRE law effecting 300Million + Americans….
http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=47529
http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=47631
LikeLike
We agree, but I think it might exceed ‘narrow’. Exciting stufff, eh james?
LikeLike
Here’s a good resource. Look for posts by Lyle Denniston.
http://www.scotusblog.com/
LikeLike
Been meaning to head over there but I forgot! Thanks for the heads up.
LikeLike
I’m a bit torn. If nothing else, I hope that the ACA would get a process going to improve the health care system. We spend a lot on medicine in this country, but our overall health stats are far from the best in world. In threading the political needle to get a process going, I thought President Obama did a good thing. So a decision to simply strike the law down and preserve the status quo does not seem that good a thing. After all the current health care system is far from a free market in any way. In one way or another we try to provide some minimum level of care to all, and being more open, up-front and coherent about that would be a good thing.
But I also think their should be limits on the power the commerce clause and general welfare allows the federal government.
Overall, I lean to thinking the law should be improved by legislative action, not the court stepping in. After all we can’t have an activist judiciary can we?
LikeLike
I understand a lot of the objections to this law, but to me it all comes down to one two things – providing universal health care and paying for it, but the States and the Congress have for nearly a hundred years proved themselves unequal of that task. And meanwhile, health care costs are going to strangle the United States.
We have a problem, it’ss getting worse, it’s very dangerous, and we just must act. And for me, just cutting people off from health care is no answer and deeply immoral.
The ACA is actually a serious attempt to begin to stanch the rising costs. It’s a beginning.
Anyway,, given the scope of the problem, I really don’t htink we can treat it like any other legal/constittuional problem. It’s unique because it will destroy us
LikeLike
Nice new picture by the way!
LikeLike
New here, but not so new . . . ten years old just like the other one.
LikeLike
7-2 has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?!
If i understood the Tea Party woman on Chris Matthews Show today, she doesn’t think she should have to buy health insurance because, should she be off somewhere and have a stroke or something, doctors have taken a hippocratic oath and must take care of her. They’ll work something out, doncha know.
LikeLike
I heard her. Not quite up it. That part knocke me out. I wanted Matthews to ask “okay, DRs took an oath, but what about the equipment and suppllies . . . who gives you permission to have those without paying?”
LikeLike
Mary Lee…
NOBODY WANT’S to pay for anything these days…
Of course that’s NOT how insurance works…..
You throw ya monies into the pool so that IF ya need it…
It’s there…
The MORE money ….
The MORE it’s there…
LikeLike
Right james, which is why we really need universal insurance no matter who pays. Without a broader pool to include the young and healthy, it’s just not real insurance.
LikeLike
Hmmm ,,,, We have a court who can ignore precedence. We have a court who can rule on a political preference. We have a court that rule corporations are people. … thus I have no clue what they will do.
LikeLike
Real argument started this am frank. Audio goes up at 1pm. I’m recording it to hear later. We’ll see, won’t we!
LikeLike
Yep … time will tell. Give that I have seen the majority of pundits ranging with 5-4, 6-3, and 7-2 going for, and only a few saying 5-4 against, I say they strike it down based on fear the gov’t can ban toilet paper in favor of corn cobs.
LikeLike
Ouch!!!!
LikeLike