Response to elleng (Reply #26)
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:16 PM
Alcibiades (5,048 posts)
28. Here's an exerpt:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don'thave the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car andyou do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticismsof that rule, but that's generally the rule. And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes therelationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in lifeare matters of degree, in the insurance and health careworld, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- theyoung person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.
It's hard to see Kennedy voting to uphold the law, if this is how he feels, let alone Scalia or Roberts.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Here's an exerpt:
|woo me with science||Mar 2012||#16|
|sabrina 1||Mar 2012||#17|
|sabrina 1||Mar 2012||#20|
|kenny blankenship||Mar 2012||#27|
Please login to view edit histories.