The Obama health insurance scam might end up to be a bookend ruling. The many hours set aside by the high court to discuss the law just might be the end of the long run of the Commerce Clause as the rationale for expanded federal power. The first bookend is the New Deal cases and the Civil Rights cases which followed decades later. The Obama government might prove to be the end times for the Commerce Clause and expanded federal power.
After today we know a whole lot about how, when, who, and why the Supreme Court will rule on the Obama health scam. We might even know a little bit of “what” the Supreme Court will rule.
After the arguments yesterday and today we can be quite sure that the Supreme Court will sweep aside all the collateral issues and jurisprudential barnacles (such as the Anti-Injunction Act) and there is now only one issue before the high court. That issue is the Commerce Clause and the power of the federal government.
After the arguments yesterday and today we can be quite sure that the Supreme Court will come down to one man, one vote: Justice Anthony Kennedy.
While Justice Sotomayor made some noise indicating she might oppose the individual mandate and other Justices made equally intriguing statements/questions the bottom line is that both the “liberal” and “conservative” wings of the court will vote as expected (until negotiations begin at least). It is Anthony Kennedy that will determine the decision and once he decides the negotiations that will determine the ultimate vote will begin – ending in a ruling.
If Justice Anthony Kennedy decides to reject the law then some “liberal” justices might be persuaded to join in that rejection if only to ameliorate the impact of the ruling. If Justice Anthony Kennedy decides to uphold the law then some “conservative” justices might be persuaded to join in if only to ameliorate the impact of the ruling.
How might Justice Kennedy rule? Obama health scam supporters once ridiculed the possibility of the Supreme court rejecting Obama’s “big f*cking deal”. Now? As we wrote yesterday, supporters of the Obamination law are so desperate they are currently making the argument that a Supreme Court rejection of the Obamination health scam will be a plus. Sadly James Carville joined Tomasky and others in that embarrassing argument. Carville: ObamaCare being struck down would be the best thing ever to happen to Democrats.
Why is such a silly “we win when we lose” argument being made? Listen to the audio of Anthony Kennedy: The mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and the federal government:
If that exchange is in any way indicative of Justice Kennedy’s thinking the Obama health scam is doomed. Of course judges can be wily and merely be playing devil’s advocate with probing questions. But even the most avid Obama health scam supporters are in shock. For example CNN’s
Toobin: “Train wreck for the Obama administration” today on individual mandate:
It’s gonna be struck down:
“According to CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”
“This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong,” Toobin just said on CNN.
As to Justice Roberts upholding the law, does this sound like a man who is about to vote to uphold?:
Don’t count on Scalia either. Today Scalia lectured Verilli on enumerated powers:
Are we being selective in our quotes and misinforming our readers? We think our assessment is very fair. Even the rude DailyKooks realize that reality is intruding on their Hopium den and that the Obama health scam is in very “significant trouble”.
At the end of oral argument Day 2 of 3 it is the Commerce Clause, the difference between health care (which affects every human), health insurance (which the world has existed without for millennia), and Justice Anthony Kennedy. It is also clear that the high court will issue this ruling-this term, and it will not be a punt into 2015.
At the end of Day 2 we also have (via the respected SCOTUSblog) informed speculation as to what that ruling will be:
“Based on the questions posed to Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the state challengers to the individual mandate, it appears that the mandate is in trouble. It is not clear whether it will be struck down, but the questions that the conservative Justices posed to Clement were not nearly as pressing as the ones they asked to Solicitor General Verrilli. On top of that, Clement delivered a superb presentation in response to the more liberal Justices’ questions. Perhaps the most interesting point to emerge so far is that Justice Kennedy’s questions suggest that he believes that the mandate has profound implications for individual liberty: he asked multiple times whether the mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and individuals, so that it must surpass a special burden.
As to the meaning and impact of the eventual ruling this year? The highest of high stakes. We turn again to SCOTUSblog (from yesterday, before today’s hearing results):
“Without exaggeration, the final ruling has the potential to be the most important declaration on how the Constitution divides up power between national and state governments since the New Deal days some three quarters of a century ago. Without exaggeration, it could be the most important pronouncement on the federal “safety net” since the Social Security Act was upheld by the Court in 1937. Without exaggeration, a decision to strike down all or part of the new health law could be the most severe rebuff of Congress’s power over the national economy since the Sick Chicken Case in 1935. And, without exaggeration, a nullification of the Act in whole or in part could be the most devastating blow to presidential power and prestige since the Steel Seizure Case in 1952.
The law at issue is not directly about civil rights, but for the nation’s working poor, the coming ruling on the law’s validity could be as important to them as a 1938 decision was for racial minorities, essentially starting the modern civil rights revolution. And for individuals who want to be left alone by their government, the final decision may be a reminder of a 1905 decision that first spelled out a theory of individual liberty that, in time, would contribute importantly decades afterward to that same civil rights revolution.
Yes, it is that important…”
That’s a skewed view in favor of the government and a powerful federal government, but the potential impact is correct.
That analysis written before today’s events at the high court describes effectively what actually transpired today and what the arguments were/are:
“The federal government gets to open the argument that day, and its top Supreme Court advocate will seek to persuade the Court that history is on the government’s side, that health care is in a crisis of national proportions, that Congress must have the authority to rise to such occasions, and that this controversy calls for judicial modesty. For almost as long as there has been constitutional history, that attorney seems sure to argue, economic crises too big for the states to handle have been left to Congress. If Congress was constitutionally disabled from enacting this law, it will have had to surrender core constitutional power, the Court may be told.
And then two lawyers for the challengers will take turns arguing that this case does not involve just another episode of familiar history, but rather that this is constitutional history starting over. Congress, they will say, has never dared to so manage Americans’ private lives as it now has attempted, without precedent and without even a hint of authority from the Constitution. If Congress can do this, there is no invasion of private choice that will not be constitutionally tolerable, the Justices almost certainly will be told.
Wednesday will be a double-header on constitutional history. In the morning, the Court will return — as so often in the past — to the fundamental division of government authority between Congress and the courts — horizontal separation of powers that James Madison thought essential to individual liberty. That will be at the center of the argument on what happens to the remainder of the new health care law if the individual mandate were to be struck down,. And, in the afternoon, the Court will trace many of history’s earlier steps along the line that divides national and state power — the vertical separation that Thomas Jefferson thought essential to the sovereignty and dignity of governments closest to the people. That will be the focus of the argument over the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor, for the first time providing those benefits to millions of the working poor and to childless adults.”
That assessment is again skewed in favor of the government’s view. But it is correct that the issues before the high court are very high.
Left unmentioned by many is how badly Obama’s health scam is written (we can’t wait to hear the government explain why boilerplate such as a “severability clause” were not included in this legislative mess). Left unmentioned by many is the Karma of all this.
Instant Karma. Barack Obama repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton on the very question of the “mandate”. Barack Obama was warned here and by such as Paul Krugman that his attacks would come back to bite his scrawny ass. That they have.
Hillary Clinton proposed a mandate based on regional markets. Constitutional questions on the mandate could have easily been resolved, as Hillary proposed, with point of contact (meaning when you actually get sick and need health care) registration.
Also, Hillary Clinton had a plan that improved “health care”. Obama’s plan is a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies. That the Supreme Court is noticing what we noticed at the time – Obama’s scam is an health insurance finance scheme unrelated to somatic health care – is gratifying.
Under Hillary Clinton’s plan there would have been improvements on health care and the cost of insurance would have come down (by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for drugs, for instance). But Obama allied himself with Billy Tauzin in private meetings at the White House early in 2009 (the same Billy Tauzin Obama attacked in campaign ads).
Obama (when he was popular and had high approval ratings in February 2009) sold out the American people to Billy Tauzin for money from Billy Tauzin. It’s what Obama always does (read about the Obama health plan Obama supporters do not want to discuss) – treachery for personal gain and advancement.
Barack Obama’s presidency is a failure already. Barack Obama has destroyed the Democratic Party of FDR and Hillary Clinton. Now Barack Obama unwittingly will destroy the Commerce Clause as it has been wielded for a century.
In a sense the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the discussion of health care and health insurance and the Obama health scam. That judgement has already been rendered by the American People. All that is left for the Supreme Court to do on the Obama health scam is to place the tombstone.