Kennedy among the justices, asking skeptical questions about the mandate

[still_one]

The way the NY Times is reporting it, I think the HCR mandate is going down, which means so is Obama and the Democratic party

This is just what the right wing has been trying to do for years, get an in road to eliminate Medicare and Social Security

The trouble started when they gave corporations "personhood"

For those hoping for Medicare for all, or single payer, I wouldn't count on it

As far as I can see for the foreseeable future, things look extremely bleak for the country

[aquart]

1. Thank you for your concern.

Has it occurred to you that ending the mandate could be the end of the Republican party? Because it was their lousy idea?

[zbdent]

4. You'd think that the Repugs would be saying that nobody would coverage without

having some contribution, but no ... any tactic for a victory for Repugniconvicts ...

[still_one]

13. Where have you been that last 15 years. The country has turned hard right and racist. This is not

going to be the end of the republican party, in fact it will make them even MORE powerful

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/health/health-care-insurance-lifetime-caps/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[BlueDemKev]

25. Who the hell even REMEMBERS it was originally a Republican idea?

And of those who do remember, WHO CARES?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. You should never make assumptions about the outcome

based on a judge's questions during an oral argument. I was a law clerk for a state supreme court, and it was very rare that it was possible to tell how the case was going to come out just based on the questions the justices were asking. Often, what seemed like hostile questioning was merely the judge's way of determining if there were weaknesses in a particular position. The way it works, generally speaking, is this (in most appellate courts, including the Supremes): The attorneys file written briefs. The law clerk(s) review the briefs and write a memorandum describing the parties' positions and what the current law says about those positions. Then there are the oral arguments, where the attorneys can elaborate on their briefs and the judges have a chance to test their arguments. After that the justices confer and decide how they want to rule, and one of them is assigned to write the opinion.

The fact that one Justice was asking critical questions means very little at this point. Don't start digging the grave just yet.

[hifiguy]

9. Pree-cisely! nt

[kenny blankenship]

17. I agree. In the last analysis they know

that if the status quo is not cemented into law with subsidies and mandates this country is on a ten year collision course with Single Payer, aka Reeyull Soshulissts' Medicine!

ACA is the blueprint for backdoor privatization of Medicare, which is another long term Republican goal, which they have failed over and over again to achieve by frontal assaults. If ACA/PPfuckingwhateverCa is upheld we will soon be discussing expanding THAT into the traditional purview and area of Medicare, instead of expanding Medicare into the area of basic health care delivery - which SHOULD have been the aim and intention of any non-Reaganite Democrat.

[BlueDemKev]

29. I'm not "digging the grave" yet, however.....

....I sure as hell am buying some burial insurance!

[Blasphemer]

3. Actually, I have the opposite impression

I think Roberts and Kennedy may actually vote in favor. What is most disconcerting to me is the fact that Clarence Thomas continues his streak of never asking a single question. He is an embarrassment who has no business being in the position that he is in.

[bongbong]

7. My experience with Uncle Clarence

I never tire of recounting the day I watched oral arguments in front of the SCOTUS - and got to watch Uncle Clarence in deep, deep slumber. He likes to lean back in his chair as far as it will go, and drape his arm across his eyes. It appears about 20% that he is in some kind of deep thought pose, but he's not fooling anybody. He spends hours in this pose.

[hifiguy]

21. For some reason, every time I see Uncle Ruckus on

The Boondocks, I think of Clarence Thomas, the main difference being that Ruckus is louder. I wonder why?

[a kennedy]

39. I'm sure that's one reason why the SCOTUS won't EVER be televised.....

Ugh. screw uncle clarence.

[underpants]

11. They are stringing the rightwing along

They are giving them an unprecedented 3 days to argue....everyone knows that this will be upheld

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620917

[still_one]

18. I hope your assessment is right, but I am very skeptical /nt

[underpants]

19. I am getting worried now that Toobin said it doesn't look good

[still_one]

20. sorry, I hope toobin is wrong in his assessment /nt

[trof]

34. He also commented on Thomas' 'silence'.

Said something to the effect that it's now getting bizarre.

[BlueDemKev]

28. ????

How do you arrive at your conclusion?

[still_one]

14. That is the wonderful bush legacy /nt

[trof]

35. Yep, Reagan and Bush I & II fucked us.

Bush II fucked us for generations.
Chief Justice Roberts is 57.
He could conceivably be on the court for another 30-35 years.

[BlueDemKev]

27. I am PRAYING that you are right about Roberts & Kennedy....

...but I just don't feel confident after listening to the audio of their questions this morning.

[SpencerShay]

5. You wish.

President Obama, and the democrats aren't "going down" if the mandate is struck down.

[still_one]

15. Are you nuts, where do you jump to that conclusion? /nt

[FSogol]

6. The sky is falling!

[still_one]

16. It will be when civil rights are turned over to the states /nt

[hifiguy]

8. That's what judges do.

I worked for two trial court judges and both always asked skeptical questions at oral arguments. It means nothing other than that the judge is trying to find out how well the lawyer knows his or her case and arguments.

[BlueDemKev]

23. Then explain why NONE of the four liberal judges asked no "skeptical" questions.....

....of the government this morning?

[sadbear]

10. The judges have to back their opinions up, too.

You gotta be self-critical to write an (almost) air-tight opinion.

[Ikonoklast]

12. I almost hurt myself laughing at that one.

The SC has shown that they can write any damn opinion they care to, thumb their noses at the the rest of the country, and get away with it, knowing that there is precious little anyone will do anything about it.


Lower courts who don't want their opinion overturned?

You have a point.

[sadbear]

31. No one wants to be the next Roger B. Taney.

[hifiguy]

33. Roberts very nearly said that word for word

in a C-Span show on the SCOTUS a couple of nights ago. Roberts, who is clearly very smart whatever his definite faults may be, discussed Dred Scott as a terrible "self-inflicted wound" resulting from Taney's overreach and noted that it damaged the Court's prestige "for generations." He made similar remarks about Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld "separate but equal." I was rather surprised to hear him speak like that.

[Ikonoklast]

36. It's already too late to worry about that.

Bush v. Gore sealed the fate of the Roberts court as being on of the worst this country has ever seen for all time.

Sounds like Roberts has been hearing what people have been saying about him.

Rather interesting.

The criticism must sting a bit.

[Blasphemer]

37. That was pre-Roberts

Though I have no doubt the decision would have been the same with him on the bench.

[Ikonoklast]

38. You are correct, i should have used Citizen's United as the defining moment for Roberts.

I can't begin to think which one was the worst decision.

[Mr.Turnip]

22. He was also skeptical of the opposition's argument against it when they were questioned.

And so was Roberts.

But of course that's not as interesting a narrative so it's not reported on as much.

o and Toobin himself, before deciding to be alarmist said to not worry too much about the oral arguments.

The amazing thing is that listening to some of the questions this would likely be upheld easily if the wording of the bill was slightly different (IE Mandate is a tax, not a "penalty" as the bill states).

[malaise]

24. Listen for yourself

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/

[Mr.Turnip]

26. You want to know a law that was put in court and questioned heavily?

The Civil Right's Act.

Ultimately it was upheld fairly easily, but it was torn apart in questioning.

You've gotta realize something, the court typically does not rule against the will of both the Legislative and Executive Branches, if I recall correctly from what iv read the Supreme Court sides with the two branches well over at least 70% of the time.

[spanone]

30. please, don't upset the doom & gloomers

[Mr.Turnip]

32. O im not entirely discounting them.

But to say that because we had one tough day of questioning (after a good one, I know the Mandate wasn't discussed much yesterday but when it was Roberts rejected the argument used against it) means WE ARE DOOMED.

However based on past events I am cautiously optimistic, while Kennedy and Roberts were harsh at first they showed quite a few sympathies with the Government's argument when it came time to question the opposition.