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

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Item 4 in that statute defines exactly what I'm talking about:

4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

Every Justice has a financial interest in the mandate argument.

I mean if you want to get all nitpicky.

a financial interest is defined in the statute as:

(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party...

being subject to the mandate is not a financial interest...

and no, i don't want to get all nitpicky...

this whole recusal thing is borderline retarded, none of the justices should recuse themselves in this case...

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by orange

Here is a 103 page decision by the DC Court of Appeals: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...ca-opinion.pdf You'll forgive me if I don't paste the whole thing here.

However much you or RINGLEADER want to pretend it doesn't exist, it does. And the court had no trouble whatsoever finding and recapping the government's argument and summarizing it as well. I guess they did "address the question when posed."

That doesn't deal with what I mentioned or answer his question.

[orange]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That doesn't deal with what I mentioned or answer his question.

I've said what I'm going to say. You can read the decision and if you have specific objections, make them.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by orange

I've said what I'm going to say. You can read the decision and if you have specific objections, make them.

read?

read?

this is chiefs planet...

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by go bowe

and no, i don't want to get all nitpicky...

this whole recusal thing is borderline retarded, none of the justices should recuse themselves in this case...

Yup.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by orange

I've said what I'm going to say. You can read the decision and if you have specific objections, make them.

Cool trick by putting something up for that takes a hour or more of careful reading on a BB.
I did skim it though, and it's nothing more than someone's opinion that they can mandate people buy insurance.

[FishingRod]

I would imagine that what will eventually happen is that the federal government will create a number taxes to fund universal healthcare. The states have already established that they can force their citizens to buy Auto insurance so the heath care will not have the legal issues at the state level.. The Fed will then blackmail the states with their funding like they do the highways and then you will have state run federally funded universal health care.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by orange

I've said what I'm going to say. You can read the decision and if you have specific objections, make them.

Ringleader asked YOU for a straightforward question. Not for a judicial opinion.
Should I or he, get the judicial opinion of some other judges who thought otherwise?

[go bowe]

yes, please do, i'm bored...

[orange]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Ringleader asked YOU for a straightforward question. Not for a judicial opinion.

And I answered him at some length in #72. And you haven't refuted any of it.

Next.

[BucEyedPea]

No you didn't.

[orange]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No you didn't.

I'll bet RINGLEADER can figure out what I said and respond accordingly. As for you - you haven't asked anything, so the best you're going to get is that link.

[HonestChieffan]

Elena Kagan Must Be Recused In ObamaCare Case

Posted 07:10 PM ET
Supreme Court: Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn't be on the court anyway.

If Justice Elena Kagan were a person of character, she would sit out the Supreme Court's hearing of the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But during her confirmation hearings in June of last year, she indicated she would not. And since this Monday, when the court announced it would take the case, she has done nothing to suggest she will recuse herself after all. Nor has the court made any statement about her recusal, a convention it usually follows when a justice takes himself or herself off a case.

Here are the facts on Kagan: She was the administration's solicitor general when ObamaCare became law last year. She has acknowledged that she was at a meeting in which state litigation against ObamaCare was discussed, though she said she was not involved in any legal responses concerning the states' litigation.

We also know that Kagan enthusiastically supported ObamaCare. This is made clear in emails released last week by the Justice Department.

"I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," Kagan wrote on the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama Justice Department.

On the same day that note was sent, an associate attorney general emailed Justice Department lawyers to organize a health care litigation meeting. A Kagan deputy later emailed her suggesting that she attend.

While nothing in the chain of emails indicates Kagan was at the meeting, neither is there any evidence that she said she was not going to attend.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
Nearly lost in this is the possibility that Kagan lied during her confirmation. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had not been asked about the legal issues of ObamaCare nor had she offered any views on them. The emails, however, seem to tell a different story. Two exclamation points plainly show that in her legal opinion, ObamaCare was constitutional.

A Kagan recusal would not secure a finding against ObamaCare. Even if she were recused, it's plausible the case could end in a 4-4 vote, which isn't enough to overturn it. But her recusal would be necessary if Justice Clarence Thomas were to recuse himself. If he's out and she's not, ObamaCare is upheld at 4-4 if not 5-3.

The case against Thomas, however, is weak. He didn't work for a White House that pressed for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing an opinion on it. His only link is his wife, who's been involved with groups opposed to ObamaCare.

Thomas should stay. There's no conflict of interest. Kagan, though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of the court.

http://news.investors.com/Article/59...se-Thyself.htm

[Otter]

What a ****ing nightmare our government has become. Anyone who wants to see this cancerous tumor be allowed to grow anymore needs to have their head examined.

And that no good piece of shit, lying, scumbag, puss bag in the white house needs out...yesterday.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Elena Kagan Must Be Recused In ObamaCare Case

Posted 07:10 PM ET
Supreme Court: Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn't be on the court anyway.

If Justice Elena Kagan were a person of character, she would sit out the Supreme Court's hearing of the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But during her confirmation hearings in June of last year, she indicated she would not. And since this Monday, when the court announced it would take the case, she has done nothing to suggest she will recuse herself after all. Nor has the court made any statement about her recusal, a convention it usually follows when a justice takes himself or herself off a case.

Here are the facts on Kagan: She was the administration's solicitor general when ObamaCare became law last year. She has acknowledged that she was at a meeting in which state litigation against ObamaCare was discussed, though she said she was not involved in any legal responses concerning the states' litigation.

We also know that Kagan enthusiastically supported ObamaCare. This is made clear in emails released last week by the Justice Department.

"I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," Kagan wrote on the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama Justice Department.

On the same day that note was sent, an associate attorney general emailed Justice Department lawyers to organize a health care litigation meeting. A Kagan deputy later emailed her suggesting that she attend.

While nothing in the chain of emails indicates Kagan was at the meeting, neither is there any evidence that she said she was not going to attend.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
Nearly lost in this is the possibility that Kagan lied during her confirmation. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had not been asked about the legal issues of ObamaCare nor had she offered any views on them. The emails, however, seem to tell a different story. Two exclamation points plainly show that in her legal opinion, ObamaCare was constitutional.

A Kagan recusal would not secure a finding against ObamaCare. Even if she were recused, it's plausible the case could end in a 4-4 vote, which isn't enough to overturn it. But her recusal would be necessary if Justice Clarence Thomas were to recuse himself. If he's out and she's not, ObamaCare is upheld at 4-4 if not 5-3.

The case against Thomas, however, is weak. He didn't work for a White House that pressed for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing an opinion on it. His only link is his wife, who's been involved with groups opposed to ObamaCare.

Thomas should stay. There's no conflict of interest. Kagan, though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of the court.

http://news.investors.com/Article/59...se-Thyself.htm

I find it ironic that this person suggests that one justice should sit it out because of their involvement for it and another should not because it was their wives involvement against it. Seems mighty convenient, but here is the truth. If you think for a moment that anyone on the Supreme Court does not already have an opinion in the matter then you are delusional. They all will. They all will sit down and vote on it together and majority rules.

None of this person should excuse themselves because they are probably going to vote this way on it crap.