« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Toobin on Obamacare Supreme Court Arguments: ‘This Was a Train Wreck for the Obama Administration’

By: Jeff Emanuel (Diary)  |  March 27th, 2012 at 01:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’ll leave further commentary to our excellent lawyers, but here’s the video:

The CNN legal correspondent’s comments included the following:

This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it’s going to be struck down…All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.

…The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides, all four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were — they did not meet with their success with their colleagues.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bs61

    n/t

  • renl57

    …the Supremes have given the GOP some great issues for their attack ads.

    No one can predict which way the Supremes will rule–they have often surprised us.

    But the Dems are gnashing their teeth that the whole question of forcing citizens to enter into private contracts has been broadcast into every American home. That’s NOT the part of ObamaCare that the Dems wanted to tout this year.

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    …all four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were ? they did not meet with their success with their colleagues.

    Aren’t judges supposed to just the argument rather than make them? Just asking.

    • JX12

      When “liberal” is used as a descriptor (in this case, liberal justices), then all bets are off.

    • sulmak

      mainly because it increases their value, and many judges having been lawyers also believe that. But that doesn’t make it true.

      It is absurd to pretend that if a judge had to choose between two ridiculous arguments made by two lawyers, and the law was clear it was something different, that the judges must absolutely choose between the two lawyers arguments. This is just hypothetical, I am not saying that that is what is going on in this case.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    later in the day. It seemed like he was searching for a reason or precedent which would limit the intrusive affect of a mandate that would be used in the future by Congress to grow the Federal Government’s authority. Too me, that is the Rosetta Stone. If Kennedy finds that, We the People, are done.

    I believe Toobin’s earlier fears were very much premature.

    • barleycorn

      I thought his comment that the mandate would change the relationship between the government and individuals in a “fundamental way” was a rather strong statement.

      Also, if he is asking about how to limit the power, did he find any justification?

      • Marcus_Traianus

        This is about the best wrap-up. Money quote;

        If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government?s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday?s argument wound up ? with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate?s savior.

    • sarg01

      I assume you’re referring to his exchange with Carvin. It’s notable that Mr. Carvin’s tone was considerably less deferential than Clement’s. He laid out his case as if there really wasn’t anything for the court to decide, since it was so plainly unconstitutional — which isn’t generally a great approach when speaking to judges.

      I got the sense that Kennedy was almost trying to just get Carvin to stop being so declarative.

      Put in context, Justice Breyer had worked himself into liberal frenzy and gave Carvin a three-paragraph lecture about how he wasn’t arguing the right concepts.

      Carvin responded by saying Congress chose not to regulate the actual problem of free riders they claim as justification, but instead Obamacare was using the free riders (20% of the uninsured) as leverage to force everyone (100% of the uninsured) to buy.

      Kennedy’s exact response to that was “I agree — I agree that’s what’s happening here.” Notice that he jumped into the middle of Carvin answering a different justice’s point.

      Kennedy then got a little snarky, “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.” I think this clearly shows Kennedy’s feel on the issue … “the government” is full of it.

      He then added the softening language that you’re probably concerned about to suggest that he wasn’t actually trying to say Obamacare was full of it. Kennedy’s known to love the attention that comes from being the swing vote, and he was probably concerned he had tipped his hand.

      Clement was excellent and met with nearly no resistance from anyone not considered a liberal. Kennedy openly agreed with him a couple times.

  • Right Reason

    What’s the over /under on how many pages of opinion it takes the liberals to get through the mental gymnastics required to justify this monstrosity?

    • jaykali

      I can’t wait to read all the stories ab the right-wing justices striking down the mandate.

      • Flagstaff

        I’m looking forward to it.

        • jaykali

          So that didn’t take long. I think it is a good sign that democrats and liberal supporters are already greasing the skids in anticipation that the mandate will get struck down.

          Hopefully even if the whole thing doesn’t get struck down (which is probably unlikely), the loss of the mandate makes the thing so unsustainable that it is easier to get the whole thing replaced if we can get a republican president into office.

  • jaykali

    The individual mandate falling would be great news because it means that the whole thing starts to unravel. We wouldn’t have the IRS (presumably) collecting health insurance information. We wouldn’t have fines and things for non-compliance. The money wouldn’t work for the insurance companies because forcing young people to pay high insurance premiums for coverage they don’t need was supposed to help pay for things like not being able to deny coverage for others.

    I have felt for a while that the individual mandate would fail for sure. Now as to the other stuff, probably not but who knows. Like I really wonder about the medicaid stuff put on the states. That seems to be a big part of this whole thing, so I wonder how that will fare.

    I heard this morning on maybe fox or something that somehow Obama getting his law struck down (partially or fully) would somehow galvanize his base. This is fantasy, this will be humiliating for the Democrats bc they got caught red handed passing an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law. Maybe laws get struck down all the time, I have no idea. I know that THIS law is a /BFD/ and the individual mandate falling is going to put a nail in the coffin imo of the Democrats reign of terror.

  • Scope

    Justice Scalia tells the Obama lawyer today, as the lawyer is trying to argue that all the young people must buy health insurance to cover the already sick. LOL Go get um Justice Scalia.

  • johnt

    n/t

  • eddiethegeek

    This law is an affront to our freedom in so very many ways. It is an eggregious overreach of government authority and power, it is NOT the kind of thing our federal government has any business in doing. If this law is upheld, then there is NOTHING that the federal government cannot make us do. Simple as that.

    The future of our once-great Republic looks quite dim anyway; if this law were upheld, it would be the death knell for our experiment in self-government.

    • doctorcynic

      …is predicated on the assumption that “every American must eventually participate in health care,” or statements along those lines. Why is this, exactly?

      EMTALA, of course. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, passed in 1986, is the primary nidus of the infection of health care system abuse by the American (or, in many cases, illegal immigrant) patient. It’s also the reason that anyone who complains about Americans “not having access to health care” has no idea what they’re talking about. More importantly, EMTALA was the first intrusion of the federal government into health care. Unfortunately, the ultimate and not-politically-feasible solution is to repeal it, let the states mandate what they will and are able to fund, and give private charities, churches, and altruistic citizens the opportunity to deliver charity care more wisely and efficiently at a local level.

      Your points are all frighteningly valid. The only question is, where does a physician (or any American, for that matter) expatriate to? Belize? Costa Rica? New Zealand is an awfully long plane ride…

      • sarg01

        It’s a political non-starter to kick people out of the ER.

        However, reading the transcript, the lawyers for our side did a pretty good job of pointing out that the government caused the problems it’s ostensibly trying to fix. They focused their fire more directly on Obamacare itself, specifically the pre-existing condition, guaranteed issue and community rating provisions … accurately pointing out these was the only reason Obamacare needs the individual mandate.

        Basically, the position was that Congress can’t create a problem just so it can fix the problem.

        • scotchleaf

          Otherwise WE get to pay for them. I thought this was why the Heritage Foundation and CATO came up with an insurance mandate in the first place.

          • acat

            It’d be *much* simpler to allow emergency rooms to gather biometric data for billing purposes, and move them to the front of the line in terms of getting money in a bankruptcy.

            Before you object, they’re *hospitals*, they already have DNA from that blood draw they did when you rolled in. Show ‘em your insurance card or they’ll scan your fingerprints… No more invasive than what they already do .. they just currently don’t *use* the data.

            If the patient pays, no problem!

            If the patient doesn’t pay, the hospital gets the first shot at a lien on the house, a garnishing of wages, etc.

            If a patient uses a fake name,thus committing fraud, the prints go into the system as a criminal.

            At no time is anyone mandated to buy anything, nobody further invades civil rights, and it’s all hashed out using existing civil (bankruptcy) and criminal (fraud) laws.

            Mew

          • scotchleaf

            What if they are unemployed and have no assets? Here is my solution: just add the cost of health insurance to food, based on the relative health of the ingredients. There, everyone is covered and there is no way to avoid payment.

          • Flagstaff

            Insist on payment, under the same terms everybody else does.

          • acat

            Ever heard of a garden?

            Your argument is foolishness.

            Mew

          • scotchleaf

            Also, Great – I’m all for people growing their own food – the physical work would more than offset the tiny loss of health insurance money.

            No need to get personally insulting.

          • acat

            you’re on the list of people who have their hands out for my hard-earned money.

            I find that insulting. Go ahead and correct it.

            Mew

          • gekster

            Did ya read his Obama apolagist diary?

          • acat

            Embarrassing!

            Mew

          • gekster

            I’ll taker a look.

          • scotchleaf

            Lets hear your creative idea to have everyone pay for their own health care while not denying care to anyone…

          • acat

            pulling your head out of your {ahem} …

            Mew

          • sarg01

            I just think that it’s a government intrusion that 90% of the people want.

            Good luck getting anyone elected in anything but the reddest of districts/states if he’s advocating what will be portrayed in the media as kicking poor people into the gutter to die.

          • morrigan

            How about kicking them out of the country?

            If we’re so far gone in squeamishness and sqishyness that we can’t enforce any laws which might make some peoples lives difficult – even when they deserve it – then we’re already a leftist nation and we’re just in denial about the fact.

          • morrigan

            We get to pay for them in either case.

            The poor are not going to be forced to buy their own health insurance. They’re POOR after all. The point of Obamacare is to transfer wealth from the haves to the have-nots, not to mandate that some unskilled laborer working off the books must shell out thousands of dollars to purchase his own health plan.

          • scotchleaf

            Make them buy health insurance when they buy Twinkies and beer – add a little bit of tax to foods – more for unhealthy foods. Use the funds to pay for last-resort healthcare.

            Also, get rid of uninsured drivers: add liability insurance to gas.

          • Kyle-MI

            It would mean lower taxes than you are proposing. It would mean more personal responsibility than you are proposing. It would mean less government control over our lives than you are proposing. In short, it would be way more conservative. Why are you even posting on this site?

        • doctorcynic

          However, let’s not characterize repealing EMTALA as conservatives wanting to “kick people out of the ER.” That’s not it at all. It’s a question of who needs to be responsible for indigent care, and for many reasons that shouldn’t be the federal government.

          I totally agree that the feds are trying to fix a problem they themselves have directly created, and I do appreciate that the argument got a fair chance to be a convincing one today.

          • acat

            Whose problem should it be?

            Hint – between Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare, the VA system, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the government is bigger than any health insurance carrier.

            Hint – doctors used to be able to deduct quite a lot more of their pro bono stuff; as I understand it the rules have changed within the last decade or two.

            Mew

  • Flagstaff

    ?The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides

    means only that Roberts is making sure that the case for striking the law (or not) is clear cut and easily defended. If the libs on the court desire to be known as hacks, that’s up to them, but I’d like to be able to say, “It’s obvious that the law was unconstitutional and Roberts’ decision shows exactly why.”

    I know that Roberts is big on precedent and hates judicial “activism,” but I hope he will also see this as a great opportunity to start to turn back some bad decisions.

    • sarg01

      Carvin came right out of the gate with a an argument that basically none of the previous discussion matters because “Congress does not have the power to promote commerce.”

      Roberts jumped in with the legal equivalent of WTF? to that, pointing out that Congress has plenty of subsidies.

      Carvin tried to clarify and Roberts came back with “I don’t think you’re addressing their main point, which is that they are not creating commerce” — note he didn’t say “the main point” or “my main point”.

      Later on, Roberts came back with “the government’s position is almost everybody is going to enter the health care market.” Again, look at the language, it’s the government’s position. Roberts is almost pleading with Carvin to shred that position — he does kind of get there eventually, and Roberts says nothing else for the duration of the session.

      • lineholder

        And between the verbal interaction you’ve mentioned and his closing comments, he had an opportunity to point out the plenary powers arguments and to draw the distinction that the words “activity” and “inactivity” are not included in the Constitution whereas the words “commerce” and “noncommerce” are identified with accurate specificity.

  • dajeeps

    The only targets of the mandate are people who could afford insurance who choose not to buy. How many actually could afford it that don’t buy it? It’s quite a small subset of the “uninsured” statistic as to be negligible. The only thing the mandate does is capture those people to dilute the cost by whatever they may contribute, which is not much compared to the size of current price distortions. The rest will be getting subsidies, which is the same as paying for them anyway. It doesn’t relieve the costs of healthcare, at least not by the same degree as increase in demand from everyone using it for hangnails, etc…, and corruption will increase costs.

    I didn’t hear this in any of the arguments, or maybe I did with just a different spin, I don’t know. It’s just a completely bogus excuse to commandeer our liberty and hold the boot on our necks. There’s no other explanation for it.

    And so I was disappointed in all the harping on “if this solves the problem of free riders, then how could it be bad” with not quite a clear explanation of it until the end, but still not something as obvious as how it can’t be reconciled with the math.

    • sarg01

      I would buy a catastrophic-only coverage plan if one was offered at a much reduced rate. My health care expense in the last 15 years has been a combined ~$75 – and I’ve had insurance that entire time.

      The trouble with the mandate is it forces people in my position to pay for a bunch of services we don’t want (this is what the whole to-do about abortion in Obamacare is over) in order to get the tiny fraction of the services (catastrophic coverage) we are interested in.

      The reason for this force being applied is to keep Obamacare from raising premiums. In short, it’s about keeping Democrats from being tossed out of office – not about uncompensated care. That’s just the excuse.

      • Flagstaff

        (major medical) coverage is prohibited under the Unaffordable Health Act. The plan that must be purchased is a Cadillac Lincoln plan. No Ford plans allowed.

    • aesthete

      is that roping in the healthy folks who make a conscious decision to avoid paying for insurance (young people, for example) is necessary to control costs in a subsidized system. This cost will be borne disproportionately by middle class parents, which will be paying for their childrens’ healthcare until their mid-20s, and up-and-coming young professionals, who will not be subsidized in any way for their expensive health insurance plans.

      Suffice it to say, this is a terrible trade-off considering the relatively minor costs of current free riders (which would be even more minor if the expansion of EMTALA in the 90s were repealed).

      • dajeeps

        But it doesn’t pass the smell test. I remember being in the situation of being uninsured back in the 80s, having enough income to get by, but couldn’t afford $400 /mo to buy it myself. I wanted it for my daughter, but there was no way I could afford that. And I don’t know many young people who can afford that either and stay afloat.

        My point was that the portion of the uninsured they expect to rope in who can afford to buy it, but don’t, not ones who have catastrophic, which pays for the lion’s share of nasty things one gets to be hospitalized for, is small. The inference by the argument is that these people are the major cause of affordability issues, and by attacking that problem the entire thing will be solved is patently false and makes as much sense as trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating the purchase of a house.

        I don’t really know what your disagreement with me is, unless you believe the statist spew that government didn’t cause the problem, it’s all those irresponsible people out there who decide to take a trip to Maui every year instead providing for the day they get hit by a bus. That’s just garbage.

        • sarg01

          Ginsburg repeatedly tried to claim the whole thing was necessary because Maryland says uncompensated care raised prices by 7%.

          I was left thinking … seven percent? That’s supposed to be worth the mandate? And that’s the argument from the law’s big supporter.

        • aesthete

          I think it’s a simply awful trade-off from a policy standpoint. I’m one of those healthy up-and-coming young professionals, and it’s definitely not in my best interest to pay a substantial co-pay for a policy that I won’t use.

          I would just as soon either take my chances and go without insurance, or buy catastrophic insurance if the option were available to me.

  • deVere

    It ain’t over till it’s over.

  • lineholder

    I can’t believe he left himself wide open like that. Isn’t he one of the more liberal justices on SCOTUS?

    Read page 89 and the top of page 90. Breyer walks right into a “plenary power of Congress from the cradle to the grave” argument.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

    • windwaker24

      Breyer seriously needs therapy! The guy is certifiable. An arrogant Twilight Zone. I almost feel sorry for the other Justices who have to be closed up in conference with him. He’s probably more unhinged there than he is in public!

      • lineholder

        Multitasking tonight…ears on other things.

        I couldn’t believe that Breyer walked into that one. It’s the one thing above all others that the left does NOT want attention drawn to.

        (It’s supposed to be a big secret. Shhhhh! Don’t tell anybody, okay? LOL)

  • deVere

    Apart from that, Obama is a dictator-wannabe who cannot be trusted with any power, let alone vast new power.

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: Cinderella Zartman

  • Pingback: Tiana Knepper

  • Pingback: electronic cigarette

  • Pingback: commercial cleaning franchises

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: his explanation

  • Pingback: zakopane noclegi

  • Pingback: distillation

  • Pingback: Oxford magician

  • Pingback: skype

  • Pingback: Randka

  • Pingback: helpful site

  • Pingback: wedding hairstyle

  • Pingback: Mining Technology

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: jesus adrian romero free download

  • Pingback: καταστήματα λευκών ειδών

  • Pingback: Male Edge scam

  • Pingback: คอนโดเอแบคบางนา

  • Pingback: that site

  • Pingback: montage

  • Pingback: blog link

  • Pingback: videos

  • Pingback: how to get lighter skin fast

  • Pingback: bankruptcy

  • Pingback: telove mlieka

  • Pingback: Payday Loans Online

  • Pingback: seo cost

  • Pingback: diet 2 days

  • Pingback: Aquaristik Bücher

  • Pingback: official declaration

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg

  • Pingback: chair recaning

  • Pingback: los detalles completos

  • Pingback: chair repair dallas

  • Pingback: video 2 mp3

  • Pingback: Video on Demand

  • Pingback: Baby Shower Favor Ideas

  • Pingback: building addition your home plans ocoee

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: Aquariumfilter

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: znajdz milosc

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: best chocolate truffles

  • Pingback: first merchant services

  • Pingback: Payday Loans

  • Pingback: riverbed mobile

  • Pingback: antique engagement rings

  • Pingback: kirby vacuums bags

  • Pingback: college football helmet

  • Pingback: getting the right things done

  • Pingback: vending machine business for sale phoenix

  • Pingback: Shandra Sago

  • Pingback: news

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: Arkadas Ara

  • Pingback: portal randkowy

  • Pingback: College

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: study what he or she said

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: quick payday loans

  • Pingback: casino gaming

  • Pingback: Jeremy Song

  • Pingback: dry cleaners

  • Pingback: starwars7

  • Pingback: this speak to page

  • Pingback: pmu.fr resultat d hier

  • Pingback: weddings in italy

  • Pingback: enquiry

  • Pingback: madden 13 tips

  • Pingback: ipl Laser Hair Removal Redfern

  • Pingback: Setup

  • Pingback: find

  • Pingback: twitter funny

  • Pingback: Diamanta

  • Pingback: Bellamy

  • Pingback: Emma Stone

  • Pingback: investment opportunities

  • Pingback: Keneth Serrata

  • Pingback: Rayna Milosevic

  • Pingback: Kira Sturdy

  • Pingback: alfileres de boda

  • Pingback: Diseño web barato

  • Pingback: Jesse Trigueiro

  • Pingback: cheap laptops

  • Pingback: Kip Auer

  • Pingback: Brier

  • Pingback: Franklyn Solliday

  • Pingback: Great for kids

  • Pingback: Fraser

  • Pingback: A great read

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: reverse number look

  • Pingback: china trade

  • Pingback: Cheap SSL

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: keto diet plan

  • Pingback: distill definition

  • Pingback: Genevieve

  • Pingback: strona z randkami