Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

I can't find the tweet right now, but it basically predicted that the ACA will pass 7-2 with Thomas and Alito being the ones who would role back 2 centuries of precedent in favor of their own ideological beliefs.

That's how I see it going down.

I'm starting to think it will pass because the law is a pretty massive gift to big business. When it comes down to some hardcore supposed conservative principle or being good for business, they pretty much always go with business.

Yeah, that is how cynical I am of this Supreme Court.

 

[thefro]

I'm starting to think it will pass because the law is a pretty massive gift to big business. When it comes down to some hardcore supposed conservative principle or being good for business, they pretty much always go with business.

Yeah, that is how cynical I am of this Supreme Court.

Keep in mind that even though this is a conservative Supreme Court, the Republican party has went crazy far to the right since they all got nominated.

 

[Frank the Great]

the mandate is "good for business" only in the sense that without it, the insurance companies will lose a shitload of money due to the fact that they are now forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions, to pay the same for women, to cover certain minimum benefits, etc. the mandate is designed to spread the losses of the insurance companies among a greater base of insured to compensate for money lost following the new regulations. if the mandate is void and severed from the bill, the only real losers would be the insurance companies.

so basically if the entire PPACA gets thrown out, it will help business the most, because it would take away the need for the mandate in the first place (ie. the new regulations that cost them money). the next best thing for the insurance companies is for the entire bill to stay intact; they would be stuck with the new regs but at least would have the mandate to spread costs. the worst thing for business would be severing the mandate from the bill.

 

[gcubed]

the mandate is "good for business" only in the sense that without it, the insurance companies will lose a shitload of money due to the fact that they are now forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions, to pay the same for women, to cover certain minimum benefits, etc. the mandate is designed to spread the losses of the insurance companies among a greater base of insured to compensate for money lost following the new regulations. if the mandate is void and severed from the bill, the only real losers would be the insurance companies.

so basically if the entire PPACA gets thrown out, it will help business the most, because it would take away the need for the mandate in the first place (ie. the new regulations that cost them money). the next best thing for the insurance companies is for the entire bill to stay intact; they would be stuck with the new regs but at least would have the mandate to spread costs. the worst thing for business would be severing the mandate from the bill.

would be the worst for consumers as well, as those costs will be transferred to those who are actually paying

 

[LilZippa]

CLASS Act

Well if it involves kid and play I'm in. What are those two up to these days?

 

[RustyNails]

Obama's trolling knows no bounds.

 

[The Librarian]

Good primer on the individual mandate.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Here is a good place to be updated on the SCOTUS Mandate proceedings.

Seems that Kennedy is indeed going to be a tough vote, also seems that Alito is a forgone conclusion to vote against it while Scalia seems to not be showing his hand yet.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Looks like a lot of tough questioning from the conservative justices

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74525.html

This can go either way. fuuuuckkkk

Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog and a prominent Supreme Court litigator, wrote on his blog that “there is no fifth vote yet” for the mandate.
“The conservatives all express skepticism, some significant,” he wrote.

Scotusblog

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. At this point, the best hope for a fifth or sixth vote may be from the Chief Justice or Justice Alito, who asked hard questions to the government, but did not appear to be dismissive of the statute’s constitutionality.

Trouble Ahead. Fuck, if this law gets repealed, it is a disaster. And the law can't survive without the mandate.

 

[planar1280]

Wow respect to Boehner

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-abroad?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took a slight dig Tuesday at Mitt Romney for criticizing President Obama while the president was out of the country.
Boehner suggested it was inappropriate for Romney, the front-running GOP presidential contender, to take aim at Obama's exchange with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, when Obama signaled to his outgoing Russian counterpart after a meeting in South Korea that he would have more "flexibility" to negotiate on missile defense after this fall's elections.
"Clearly while the president is overseas, he's at a conference and while the president is overseas I think it's appropriate that people not be critical of him or our country," Boehner said in response to a question from NBC News about whether he agreed with Romney's assessment that Russia is the "number one geopolitical foe" of the United States.
Romney was quick to seize Monday on Obama's comments to Medvedev.
“Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage, and for this president to be looking for greater flexibility, where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very, very troubling, very alarming," the former Massachusetts governor said. "I'm very, very concerned."
GOP aides told NBC News that Boehner has long adhered to the principle that criticism of the president stops at the border’s edge while he’s abroad.
The speaker's office did flag a tweet for reporters on Monday, though, in which Boehner said he looked forward to hearing what Obama meant by the "flexibility" comment upon his return to the U.S.
In March of 2011, Boehner waited until Obama returned from Brazil before sending him a letter that was critical of his foreign policy in Libya.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Looks like a lot of tough questioning from the conservative justices

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74525.html

This can go either way. fuuuuckkkk

Yep which was expected. Many analysts are stating that Roberts doesn't want a 5-4 decision but it seems its very possible.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Wow respect to Boehner

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-abroad?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

On one hand, I give mad props for sticking to his principles, but on the other as soon as he comes back it's back to the disrespectful bullshit? Really?

 

[SteveWinwood]

Wow respect to Boehner

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-abroad?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

He doesn't stop being president when he leaves the country. Why does it matter when people critize him, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Brinbe]

Looks like a lot of tough questioning from the conservative justices

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74525.html

This can go either way. fuuuuckkkk



Scotusblog



Trouble Ahead. Fuck, if this law gets repealed, it is a disaster. And the law can't survive without the mandate.

welp...

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sounding like an utter disaster.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So if the mandate is struck down as unconstitutional and lets just say for arguments sake that Obama were to win reelection, what would happen to the rest of the law?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So if the mandate is struck down as unconstitutional and lets just say for arguments sake that Obama were to win reelection, what would happen to the rest of the law?

Rest of the law won't survive without the mandate

We will be back to the shit hole we were in before

 

[mckmas8808]

Looks like a lot of tough questioning from the conservative justices

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74525.html

This can go either way. fuuuuckkkk



Scotusblog



Trouble Ahead. Fuck, if this law gets repealed, it is a disaster. And the law can't survive without the mandate.

Yep it's going down. FUCK! I guess America deserves the shitty healthcare that it will get. Shit will continue to get worse.

 

[SteveWinwood]

It'll be fine. Feel free to bookmark this post.

 

[Mike M]

So if the mandate is struck down as unconstitutional and lets just say for arguments sake that Obama were to win reelection, what would happen to the rest of the law?

If it's ruled severable and the rest of the law remains, I would imagine the pressure to pass *something* to fix it would ratchet up quite a bit, but with the GOP running the house/cockblocking the senate, "fixing" would be limited to either outright repeal, or implementing various terrible ideas like buying across state lines.

 

[mckmas8808]

It'll be fine. Feel free to bookmark this post.

What will be fine?

 

[SteveWinwood]

What will be fine?

The mandate will not be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The mandate will not be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

Guess you weren't paying attention to today's proceedings. It's pretty clear we're headed for a 5-4 strike down

 

[SteveWinwood]

Guess you weren't paying attention to today's proceedings. It's pretty clear we're headed for a 5-4 strike down

Bookmark it. Do it.

 

[mckmas8808]

The mandate will not be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

Dude have you been reading what's been going on today?

 

[Chichikov]

Wow respect to Boehner

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-abroad?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I think that's a shitty principal.
You can and should criticize the president whenever it's necessarily.
What you shouldn't do, is attack him like a child over out of context comments or stir the diplomatic pot just to score some weak-ass political points.

The problem is not the timing or the location, it's the substance (and I use the term VERY loosely) of the criticism.

He doesn't stop being president when he leaves the country. Why does it matter when people critize him, that doesn't make sense to me.

Something, something, respect for the office.
I blame The West Wing.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Dude have you been reading what's been going on today?

Yes. Yes, I have. I'm in the other thread right now.

It will not be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

We can pretty much bank on the 4 liberal justices voting in favor
We can pretty much bank on Thomas and Alito voting against
Seems that Kennedy and Scalia are most likely against
That leaves Roberts who didn't show his hand either way.

 

[RustyNails]

Dude have you been reading what's been going on today?

Ruling mandate unconstitutional hinges on few things which the court has to disprove and also uphold it's previous precedents. They'll have to jump through more hoops as opposed to less in order to rule it unconstitutional. Justices argued about the use of taxes vs penalty, but the underlying problem is acknowledged by even the conservative justices.

 

[Door2Dawn]

This is such fucking horseshit. Why are peoples lives and health hanging on a small group of people?

People who need this law should be fucking scared right now.

 

[turnbuckle]

The mandate will not be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

.

I think that's a shitty principal.
You can and should criticize the president whenever it's necessarily.
What you shouldn't do, is attack him like a child over out of context comments or stir the diplomatic pot just to score some weak-ass political points.

The problem is not the timing or the location, it's the substance (and I use the term VERY loosely) of the criticism.

.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

"Mr. Carvin said the cost-shifting problem wasn't caused by the uninsured, but rather people who default on paying their medical bills. Thus, he argued, the insurance mandate wasn't a regulation of commerce, but rather motivated by "paternalistic reasons" involving the government's judgment of what's best."

Uneqivocally the stupidest thing I will hear today.

 

[RustyNails]

"Mr. Carvin said the cost-shifting problem wasn't caused by the uninsured, but rather people who default on paying their medical bills. Thus, he argued, the insurance mandate wasn't a regulation of commerce, but rather motivated by "paternalistic reasons" involving the government's judgment of what's best."

Uneqivocally the stupidest thing I will hear today.

Government does know what's best for majority of the people, no matter how much they hate it. Otherwise we wouldn't need Social Security. Looking at nonsensical talking points making their appearance at a court setting in a morphed fashion is slightly amusing.

 

[AlteredBeast]

This is such fucking horseshit. Why are peoples lives and health hanging on a small group of people?

People who need this law should be fucking scared right now.

The law is pretty flawed. I can argue that the people who need this law are still going to pay out the nose unnecessarily for years to come. UHC, provided by the government and supported by a raise in taxes, is the only way to fix this country's healthcare cost problem.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's unwise to infer a decision based on oral arguments. The justices like to play devil's advocate.

The law is pretty flawed. I can argue that the people who need this law are still going to pay out the nose unnecessarily for years to come. UHC, provided by the government and supported by a raise in taxes, is the only way to fix this country's healthcare cost problem.

Not like that's going to happen. This law was the best we could get.

 

[AlteredBeast]

It's unwise to infer a decision based on oral arguments. The justices like to play devil's advocate.


Not like that's going to happen. This law was the best we could get.

It is going to happen sooner or later. This stopgap/possible reversal isn't actually going to push it along any faster.

 

[mckmas8808]

Ruling mandate unconstitutional hinges on few things which the court has to disprove and also uphold it's previous precedents. They'll have to jump through more hoops as opposed to less in order to rule it unconstitutional. Justices argued about the use of taxes vs penalty, but the underlying problem is acknowledged by even the conservative justices.

You're right, but things look bad right now. Like really bad for the mandate.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It is going to happen sooner or later. This stopgap/possible reversal isn't actually going to push it along any faster.

This law can be built upon. If it's struck down that might deter Democrats from trying again.

6-3 uphold or 5-4 struck down, imo. And from what I've heard, Roberts doesn't want a 5-4 decision. He seems like someone who cares about optics.

 

[Blergmeister]

You're right, but things look bad right now. Like really bad for the mandate.

You're not PhoenixDark?

 

[Chichikov]

This is such fucking horseshit. Why are peoples lives and health hanging on a small group of people?

People who need this law should be fucking scared right now.

The exact same thing can be said about Roe v. Wade.
Welcome to the exciting world of judicial review, and sorry, they can't all be Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia.

 

[gcubed]

this is delicious. PoliGAF at its chicken little best, a great pre game for the GE

 

[PhoenixDark]

this is delicious. PoliGAF at its chicken little best, a great pre game for the GE

How is it chicken little when the vast majority of reaction to today's proceedings suggests it went bad for the government's argument? It's not like these are political analysts who don't know what they're talking about either - these are people who are quite familiar with the devil's advocate aspect of hearings yet still believe the mandate is fucked.

 

[gcubed]

How is it chicken little when the vast majority of reaction to today's proceedings suggests it went bad for the government's argument? It's not like these are political analysts who don't know what they're talking about either - these are people who are quite familiar with the devil's advocate aspect of hearings yet still believe the mandate is fucked.

maybe not chicken little, menopausal? Intense mood swings every 20 minutes

 

[AlteredBeast]

this is delicious. PoliGAF at its chicken little best, a great pre game for the GE

Nah, everyone is pretty confident except Diablos and PD about the GE.

 

[Blergmeister]

How is it chicken little when the vast majority of reaction to today's proceedings suggests it went bad for the government's argument? It's not like these are political analysts who don't know what they're talking about either - these are people who are quite familiar with the devil's advocate aspect of hearings yet still believe the mandate is fucked.

It's because you totally freaked out at the first instance of Supreme Court Oral arguments not going in your favor and called the law doomed. I don't know how to more aptly describe a chicken little scenario in this case?

 

[Jackson50]

We can pretty much bank on the 4 liberal justices voting in favor
We can pretty much bank on Thomas and Alito voting against
Seems that Kennedy and Scalia are most likely against
That leaves Roberts who didn't show his hand either way.

Is Kennedy most likely against? Initial reports indicated he was skeptical of the government's argument. But he seemed more amenable by the end of session. Presently, it seems Roberts or Kennedy could tip either way.

The most worrisome remarks for the plaintiffs--the side arguing against the Obama health law--came from Justice Kennedy, who wavered over the claim that when it came to health care, a bright line could be drawn between those engaged in commerce by buying insurance and whose wholly outside the market by declining to do so.

"Most questions in life are matters of degree," Justice Kennedy said, and the younger, healthier Americans the law seeks to drive into the risk pool are "uniquely proximate' to affecting insurance rates across the board, he said.

That leaves Chief Justice Roberts and, especially, Justice Kennedy, the perennial swing vote. Justice Kennedy's early comment that the government carried a “heavy burden of justification” showed considerable sympathy for the challengers. But toward the end, one of his questions suggested that people who don’t carry health insurance are still engaged in the health-care market—which is the central pillar of the government's case.

 

[Clevinger]

When does the supreme court actually vote on it?

 

[gcubed]

Is Kennedy most likely against? Initial reports indicated he was skeptical of the government's argument. But he seemed more amenable by the end of session. Presently, it seems Roberts or Kennedy could tip either way.

i think its going to be either a big "win" or a 5-4 "loss"

 

[cartoon_soldier]

i think its going to be either a big "win" or a 5-4 "loss"

This. It looks like Roberts will swing the way Kennedy does. Which makes 0 sense to me.

At this point, a lot of people expected the mandate to be ruled constitutional, that it was a slam dunk case. That is no longer true.

Unless either one of them drops any hints tomorrow, we won't know for sure until June.

 

[LosDaddie]

At this point, a lot of people expected the mandate to be ruled constitutional, that it was a slam dunk case. That is no longer true..

I know most of PoliGAF thought this, but who else did? Liberal bloggers?