Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare challenge

[alnorth]

Oral argument in March. That the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal is not really a surprise, but what may be a surprise is the amount of time for oral arguments. The Obamacare supreme court oral argument will be 6 hours, which obliterates the modern record for longest oral argument. (in the earliest days of the court they had days of oral argument, but in the last couple generations, oral argument was typically one hour per case. The prior modern record was 4 hours in 2003 for a campaign finance reform law)

The court will hear arguments on four issues.

#1) The constitutionality of the requirement that almost all Americans obtain health insurance by 2014. (2 hours)

#2) If the mandate in #1 is struck down, will the entire law need to be struck down? (90 minutes)

#3) Does the anti-injunction act bar challenges to Obamacare's mandate. (in other words, if the answer to this question is yes, then the court will not answer #1, #2, and probably #4 at this time. The Obamacare challenge would be thrown out and the people who are opposed to the mandate would have to wait until 2014 to re-file the case) (90 minutes)

#4) The constitutionality of the expansion of Medicaid. (1 hour)

The court refused to hear challenges to the new requirements for employers, so that would stand unless the entire law was tossed.

Update:

Oral Argument Schedule:

Monday, March 26: Issue #3 (its probably fitting that this should be heard first)

Neither side wants to argue that the supreme court can't rule until 2015, so the supreme court appointed an outside attorney to make that argument. This is a rare issue where both the feds and the states agree.

Outside attorney: 40 minutes
Feds: 30 minutes
NFIB and states: 20 minutes

Tuesday, March 27: Issue #1

Feds: 1 hour
States: 30 minutes
NFIB: 30 minutes

Wednesday, March 28: Issues #2 and #4

Issue #2:

The states believe if the mandate is struck down, then the whole law must be struck down, and the feds believe if the mandate is struck down, the ban on pre-existing conditions must also be struck down. Neither side believes that only the mandate can be struck down, leaving the rest of the law intact, so the court appointed an outside attorney to make that argument.

Outside attorney: 30 minutes
Feds: 30 minutes
NFIB and states: 30 minutes

Issue #4:

Feds: 30 minutes
States: 30 minutes

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You've convinced me. Clarence Thomas's wife should definitely recuse herself.

I agree.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

It shouldn't be a 5-4 decision. What's her butt needs to recuse herself from the case.

I don't think it matters whether she recuses herself or not, if the vote is going to be 5-4. If she does not, the vote is 5-4 and Obamacare is upheld. If she does recuse herself, the vote is then 4-4, and Obamacare is still upheld because in the event of a tie the lower court ruling would stand. I guess that could depend on which lower court ruling, since there has been more than one...but either way, there need to be 5 votes to overturn Obamacare whether she recuses herself or not.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Not quite the same now is it?

You do know lawyers get paid to advocate positions they don't necessarily agree with, right?

It's cute how you think you have a winning argument. I'll give you a hint how this will turn out. Neither Sotomayor or Kagen will recuse themselves.

You now have more time to work on your partisan outrage. You're welcome.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Not quite the same now is it?

Originally Posted by patteeu

You've convinced me. Clarence Thomas's wife should definitely recuse herself.

I guess the argument here is that her livelihood in no way contributes to Thomas'?

In which case, look up epistemic closure in the dictionary, stat.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

You do know lawyers get paid to advocate positions they don't necessarily agree with, right?

It's cute how you think you have a winning argument. I'll give you a hint how this will turn out. Neither Sotomayor or Kagen will recuse themselves. Gives you more time to work on your outrage.

I wouldn't expect that Kagen would have to dignity to recuse herself. She fought for this in her previous life.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I guess the argument here is that her livelihood in no way contributes to Thomas'?

In which case, look up epistemic closure in the dictionary, stat.

Is his Wife sitting on the bench? Ok then....

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I wouldn't expect that Kagen would have to dignity to recuse herself. She fought for this in her previous life.

Thomas' lifestyle is at least partially supported by his wife's work with a conservative advocacy group that she heads.

Matter of fact, I guarantee you she makes more dough than he does. SCOTUS doesn't pay for shit.

That advocacy group has made its bank by standing against various policy issues of Obama's over the past three years, none moreso than Obamacare.

Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself, pete?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Thomas' lifestyle is at least partially supported by his wife's work with a conservative advocacy group that she heads.

Matter of fact, I guarantee you she makes more dough than he does. SCOTUS doesn't pay for shit.

That advocacy group has made its bank by standing against various policy issues of Obama's over the past three years, none moreso than Obamacare.

Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself, pete?

Did Thomas solicit this case on behalf of the current administration?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Did Thomas solicit this case on behalf of the current administration?

You're not answering the question. Let me abstract it out for you.

Should Justice X, whose lifestyle is at LEAST partially supported by his wife's opposition to Law Y, be allowed to sit in on any decisions regarding Law Y?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I guess the argument here is that her livelihood in no way contributes to Thomas'?

In which case, look up epistemic closure in the dictionary, stat.

Her livelihood won't be impacted by the decision.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You're not answering the question. Let me abstract it out for you.

Should Justice X, whose lifestyle is at LEAST partially supported by his wife's opposition to Law Y, be allowed to sit in on any decisions regarding Law Y?

the answer is z...

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Her livelihood won't be impacted by the decision.

link?


j/k...

if it's true that a significant part of her earnings are derived from campaigning against obamacare and it is upheld, wouldn't her earnings be reduced as a result of the decision?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Her livelihood won't be impacted by the decision.

THEIR livelihood was built directly from opposing this piece of legislation, among others.

They have a vested interest.

[Garcia Bronco]

Bottom line this is a tax that was not voted on by Congress and should be struck down.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by go bowe

link?


j/k...

if it's true that a significant part of her earnings are derived from campaigning against obamacare and it is upheld, wouldn't her earnings be reduced as a result of the decision?

I don't see why it would be. She could go on to work toward it's legislative repeal. I think you could argue that her earnings could go up regardless of which way the SCOTUS rules. I also think you could argue that her earnings could go down no matter which way the SCOTUS rules. I conclude that the SCOTUS ruling won't really impact her ability to earn.