Support NeoGAF

[Officerrob]

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

I agree with this. It's either going to be 6-3 for, or 5-4 against

 

[AlteredBeast]

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

bloggers, yes. Even a lot of more left-wing pundits.

 

[gcubed]

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

both liberal and conservative legal/scotus bloggers as well

edit... and i wouldn't count scalia as a firm no yet either. It could swing to a 7-2 for (or 5-4 against)

 

[Ecotic]

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

Intrade showed great confidence in the mandate being upheld until today's developments. So, most people I guess.

 

[RustyNails]

When does the supreme court actually vote on it?

Around june

 

[teiresias]

Regardless of the actual eventual ruling, I can't believe I was hearing/ reading BS slippery slope arguments like "if they can force you to get health insurance what's to stop them from forcing you to buy broccoli" escape from the mouths of freaking SCOTUS justices.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Regardless of the actual eventual ruling, I can't believe I was hearing/ reading BS slippery slope arguments like "if they can force you to get health insurance what's to stop them from forcing you to buy broccoli" escape from the mouths of freaking SCOTUS justices.

Agreed, that shows they have been influenced by GOP fear mongering.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I am getting the feeling (after the latest updates) that the indivdual mandate for healthcare might be rejected in the end :/

I mean, it hangs in the balance of one court justice. I'd feel more confident if a few more were for it aside from just the democratic isle.

As a Leafs fan, I can't help but feel pessimistic lol

 

[Puddles]

I am getting the feeling (after the latest updates) that the indivdual mandate for healthcare might be rejected in the end :/

I mean, it hangs in the balance of one court justice. I'd feel more confident if a few more were for it aside from just the democratic isle.

As a Leafs fan, I can't help but feel pessimistic lol

Why would a Toronto fan care about the American healthcare system? You guys already have an infinitely superior system north of the border.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Why would a Toronto fan care about the American healthcare system? You guys already have an infinitely superior system north of the border.

I find American politics wayyyyyyyy more interesting then Canadian. Maybe because of the extreme divide in beliefs of a conservative vs liberal.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Regardless of the actual eventual ruling, I can't believe I was hearing/ reading BS slippery slope arguments like "if they can force you to get health insurance what's to stop them from forcing you to buy broccoli" escape from the mouths of freaking SCOTUS justices.

Why aren't slippery slope questions relevant to the justices' line of inquiry in this case?

This case is about testing the limits of the use of the commerce clause.

 

[Jackson50]

In a victory for proponents of protecting the Constitution's separation of church and state, a federal judge rejected the USCCB's argument its religious freedom allowed it to control public funding.

Catholic Bishops Lose a Big Battle Over Contraception

By Stephanie Mencimer
Mon Mar. 26, 2012 10:16 AM PDT

For the past several months, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has been waging war on the Obama administration over reproductive health care, declaring it no less than a battle over religious freedom. But on Friday, a federal judge ruled against the bishops in a fight over whether the group could impose its views on contraception and abortion through its control of taxpayer dollars.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/catholic-bishops-lose-another-contraception-fight

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

I'd say a 6-3 win is the likely outcome. It seems people panicked with the initial tough questions. Or as you noted, Chicken Little.

 

[Diablos]

The mandate will not be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

Are you kidding me? Even Kennedy spoke out against it:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described it as “unprecedented” for the federal government to impose an “affirmative duty” on people to buy a product. He was referring to the law’s requirement that everyone have minimal health coverage by 2014, or pay a penalty.

“You have a heavy burden” to show the Constitution permits Congress this sort of power, he told Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli Jr.

Showing his bias against the mandate from the very start. Not a good sign whatsoever; you'd be foolish to think otherwise. He's the "swing vote" and that's what we're hearing out of him already. Good luck trying to convince him to see things the other way.

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

It isn't that I'm not confident about the GE, it's that I seem to be one of the few people in this thread who realizes that there is still a very real possibility Obama can lose. Most people in here seem to think he is in quite the advantageous position heading into the GE. I disagree. He will have to fight much harder than he did in 2008. He can still win, and I think, at this point, it looks like he will (if only by a couple states), but that could change and it's silly to assume he's always going to be sitting pretty. The mandate getting struck down will be another huge blow, btw. A whole year wasted on something that didn't even remain constitutionally sound by the end of the President's first term. That's a lot of ads and talking points waiting to happen, and independents who weren't always that crazy for HCR to begin with will be reminded of that period of time. Bad news no matter how you try to spin it, pal.

I can't believe anyone can actually say with confidence that the mandate will not be struck down. Do you like setting yourself up for disappointment and added frustration? What makes you think it will not be struck down? Kennedy was our last hope, and he basically bailed the instant it started.

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

You know, your general attitude towards anyone who isn't blindly cheerleading for anything that comes down the pipe pertaining to this administration and related policy is really dismissive and juvenile. "Oh, ur just a chicken little lolol". You used to say that almost exclusively to me, but now that more people also seem to be showing concern about the fate of the mandate, you throw the same label around. Does this make it easier to downplay your own fears or concerns? It's petty and can only work for so long, man. There are real concerns about Obama's electability this year, LEGITIMATE concerns. And there is nothing "chicken little" about the fact that the Affordable Care Act is looking to be pretty fucked. Please tell me how people reacting to Kennedy's comments = "chicken little". He was our last hope, and he came out of the gates swinging already. Where's the other vote going to come from? There are only four solidly liberal justices.

Everyone should be preparing for the worst. Otherwise you are just going to be even more upset.

I'd say a 6-3 win is the likely outcome. It seems people panicked with the initial tough questions. Or as you noted, Chicken Little.

Seriously? 6-3? 5-4 in favor is the best case scenario. It will come down to Kennedy. Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts do not give a fuck about this law.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

Seriously? 6-3? 5-4 in favor is the best case scenario. It will come down to Kennedy. Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts do not give a fuck about this law.

Roberts does, and Thomas doesn't care about anything, so he shouldn't count.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

diablos: the sky is falling is in theatres again, eh

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Seriously? 6-3? 5-4 in favor is the best case scenario. It will come down to Kennedy. Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts do not give a fuck about this law.

If Kennedy votes in favor of the law you better believe Roberts will too. If Kennedy goes against it than I'd wager that Roberts will too. A 5-4 ruling just doesn't seem likely.

 

[RustyNails]

Clarence Thomas is such a fucking tool.

 

[RustyNails]

diablos: the sky is falling is in theatres again, eh

It's actually the sequel. The sky is falling part 2: How obama lost an election by a landslide because the supreme court deemed health care mandate unconstitutional.

 

[Diablos]

diablos: the sky is falling is in theatres again, eh

Yeah, just like it did when I maintained Dems would lose the House and everyone thought I was crazy.

 

[markatisu]

Seriously? 6-3? 5-4 in favor is the best case scenario. It will come down to Kennedy. Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts do not give a fuck about this law.

Given how Kennedy ended the session he is tipping more to upholding it, and Roberts gives a fuck because it will be part of his legacy as the head of the court in a landmark decision.

Also on your GE comments, if it was a decent Republican running I would likely agree with you but its not its Romney.

If the Health Care act is going to be a defining measure of Obama then how in the hell do you explain people suddenly voting for the man who was the architect of the bill in MA???

Romney cannot beat anybody, he can't even muster his own base which is why he is in this farce of a primary despite all signs pointing to him winning it.

Obama can be beat, just not by Romney

 

[SteveWinwood]

Y'all better expect a meteor to hit soon or else you're going to be really disappointed.

 

[markatisu]

Scotusblog

Analysis

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.

If the vote had been taken after Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., stepped back from the lectern after the first 56 minutes, and the audience stood up for a mid-argument stretch, the chances were that the most significant feature of the Affordable Care Act would have perished in Kennedy’s concern that it just might alter the fundamental relationship between the American people and their government. But after two arguments by lawyers for the challengers — forceful and creative though they were — at least doubt had set in. and expecting the demise of the mandate seemed decidedly premature.

On why it could be 6-3

If that coalition were to form, it would be likely that Justice Kennedy, the senior among those five, almost certainly would assign the opinion to himself — unless, of course, the Chief Justice ultimately were persuaded to go along so that this historic case did not turn out to be decided 5-4. Roberts was among the more combative adversaries of the mandate, during Verrilli’s argument, but he made considerable efforts to remind the challengers’ lawyers of the government’s key points, perhaps to test how solid their answers to those points would be.

Don't discount Roberts feeling of history and his legacy

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yeah, just like it did when I maintained Dems would lose the House and everyone thought I was crazy.

Anybody reading the tea leaves at the time should have been able to see what was happening. This isn't the same. Economy is picking up at a healthy pace. Romney can't even get support from the base of the GOP. They're not excited about him as a candidate. Seriously, this election isn't even in the same galaxy as in 2010.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama can be beat, just not by Romney

As Carville said the other day, Romney cannot beat Obama. Only events can beat Obama.

 

[Black Republican]

Romney leads Santorum in WI according to MArquette Law School

The GOP race for president has flipped in Wisconsin since last month, with Mitt Romney overtaking Rick Santorum in the latest poll by Marquette Law School.

Romney leads Santorum 39% to 31% in a survey of GOP primary voters taken last Thursday through Sunday.

Ron Paul is running third in the poll with 11%, followed by Newt Gingrich with 5%.

The new numbers represent a major shift from Marquette’s February poll, which showed Santorum leading Romney in the state 34% to 18%, followed by Paul at 17% and Gingrich at 12%.

They are also roughly consistent with a poll done almost one week ago on March 21 by Rasmussen Reports, which showed Romney leading Santorum 46% to 33%.

When Marquette polled all voters, not just GOP primary voters, it found President Barack Obama leading Romney 48% to 43% in a fall match-up, and leading Santorum 51% to 39%.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/144405205.html

 

[Allard]

Yeah, just like it did when I maintained Dems would lose the House and everyone thought I was crazy.

Wut? Almost everyone in this thread saw the Dems losing the house and only a small group of people held out 'hope' for something to change. I was very confident about 3-4 months out from the election that they were going to lose it but the question was by how much. There were also a ton of people that thought the senate was going to get flipped but it didn't.

Just like how now I am very confident Obama is going to win the election but I don't think it will be by the margins we are starting to see now, elections always get tighter as we approach the GE.

After yesterdays hearing I am fairly confident the law will be upheld and the mandate will be declared constitutional. Kennedy might have not been very keen on the way the law was being defended, but the statement he made toward the end in regards to the nature of federal governments hold on healthcare and how everyone has a part to play in the commerce surrounding it has been the key to administrations defense the whole time.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Given how Kennedy ended the session he is tipping more to upholding it, and Roberts gives a fuck because it will be part of his legacy as the head of the court in a landmark decision.

Also on your GE comments, if it was a decent Republican running I would likely agree with you but its not its Romney.

If the Health Care act is going to be a defining measure of Obama then how in the hell do you explain people suddenly voting for the man who was the architect of the bill in MA???

Romney cannot beat anybody, he can't even muster his own base which is why he is in this farce of a primary despite all signs pointing to him winning it.

Obama can be beat, just not by Romney

Romney just has to say "my law was constitutional. Yours was not." End of story, regardless of the false equivalency. An unconstitutional ruling would do major damage to Obama. Gas prices will most likely still be high in June, remember.

Most people still don't like the law. Part of that is the administration's fault, part of it is the media's. Regardless most people will be happy if it is struck down, and will never see the law's true potential considering so much of it goes into effect in 2014.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Romney just has to say "my law was constitutional. Yours was not." End of story, regardless of the false equivalency. An unconstitutional ruling would do major damage to Obama. Gas prices will most likely still be high in June, remember.

Most people still don't like the law. Part of that is the administration's fault, part of it is the media's. Regardless most people will be happy if it is struck down, and will never see the law's true potential considering so much of it goes into effect in 2014.

It's unfortunate that we can no longer have ban bets or I'd love to take you up on this.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Don't discount Roberts feeling of history and his legacy

Roberts is a strange case. Most analysts said that he doesn't want a 5-4 decision on this issue, but any decision against the mandate will always be 5-4. Only them finding the mandate is constitutional will include a bigger majority.

 

[markatisu]

Roberts is a strange case. Most analysts said that he doesn't want a 5-4 decision on this issue, but any decision against the mandate will always be 5-4. Only them finding the mandate is constitutional will include a bigger majority.

Exactly why some people feel a 6-3 would be the outcome, if Kennedy goes for it I would be inclined to believe Roberts will go for it to make it part of his legacy. This has the potential to be as important as Roe v Wade, he knows this.

Chief Justice Roberts, who had gone beyond skepticism to somewhat sarcastic rejection of Verrilli’s argument, did have a bit of a turnaround — at least in tone — when the challengers’ lawyers (Carvin and Paul D. Clement) were at the lectern.
At several points, he brought up some of Verrilli’s points, at least implying that they may have something to them. Nonetheless, it still would be difficult to find him, happily, voting in favor of the mandate. Perhaps, though, as the decision developed in coming weeks, Roberts had left himself some room to maneuver, perhaps to join a Kennedy-led coalition for the mandate.

The argument this is just like Social Security was the winner for me, its virtually the same thing as we require people to pay into SS but with Health Care people would get the benefits almost instantly

 

[Clevinger]

Romney just has to say "my law was constitutional. Yours was not."

"You said you wanted your plan at the federal level, now you don't. Make up your mind."

 

[Zzoram]

If the individual mandate is unconstitutional then uninsured people should be denied healthcare. Only people paying in should be getting service.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

If the individual mandate is unconstitutional then uninsured people should be denied healthcare. Only people paying in should be getting service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

 

[Zzoram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

That is why the individual mandate should be legal. Everyone is getting the service, everyone should pay for it.

 

[Allard]

That is why the individual mandate should be legal. Everyone is getting the service, everyone should pay for it.

Its actually one of the central arguments that Kennedy is most leaning toward by the looks of yesterday. Because every American participates in some fashion in the healthcare market and the Federal Government itself has the right to regulate these markets as has been precedent using the Commerce Clause, the mandate itself is constitutional as another mechanism to regulate a system that is already in place, it just shifts the burdens around.

 

[Oblivion]

Why do people keep saying if Kennedy votes yes, Roberts will follow? Are they on the same bowling team or something?

And why the fuck would a right wing judge like Roberts worry about voting against the individual mandate? As a conservative, if anything, him rejecting it would be the kind of mark one would think he'd want to leave in history.

 

[Allard]

Why do people keep saying if Kennedy votes yes, Roberts will follow? Are they on the same bowling team or something?

And why the fuck would a right wing judge like Roberts worry about voting against the individual mandate? As a conservative, if anything, him rejecting it would be the kind of mark one would think he'd want to leave in history.

Its because he doesn't want to be on the losing side of this fight as the chief justice of such a landmark case, he either wants his vote to be the deciding one or part of the winning one. Kennedy goes in favor then it almost automatically wins. Basically a rubber stamp on the ultimate decision.

 

[Jackson50]

As Carville said the other day, Romney cannot beat Obama. Only events can beat Obama.

That's largely congruent with the extant literature. The fundamentals are predominantly determinative while idiosyncratic factors are exaggerated. Presently, the fundamentals favor Obama, although they are tenuous enough to temper his prospects. So, I disagree with those who predict Obama's victory on the basis of Romney's weaknesses. It's not necessarily about Romney. It's primarily about the fundamentals favoring Obama. And he would be favored irrespective of the GOP nominee. Although, to the extent that idiosyncratic are consequential, and they are on the margins, they also favor Obama; his organizational capacity is impressive. And in a competitive election, that could be monumental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

That and excludability is not feasible. If we implemented statutory prohibition for those unable to pay, the system would be plagued by inefficiency even more than our present disjointed system. That's especially true for emergency medical services. Consequently, healthcare has to be a collective endeavor.

 

[Plinko]

Romney leads Santorum in WI according to MArquette Law School




http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/144405205.html

LOL...Santorum just needs to stop.

 

[gcubed]

That's largely congruent with the extant literature. The fundamentals are predominantly determinative while idiosyncratic factors are exaggerated. Presently, the fundamentals favor Obama, although they are tenuous enough to temper his prospects. So, I disagree with those who predict Obama's victory on the basis of Romney's weaknesses. It's not necessarily about Romney. It's primarily about the fundamentals favoring Obama. And he would be favored irrespective of the GOP nominee. Although, to the extent that idiosyncratic are consequential, and they are on the margins, they also favor Obama; his organizational capacity is impressive. And in a competitive election, that could be monumental.That and excludability is not feasible. If we implemented statutory prohibition for those unable to pay, the system would be plagued by inefficiency even more than our present disjointed system. That's especially true for emergency medical services. Consequently, healthcare has to be a collective endeavor.

i need to download a thesaurus extension for chrome

 

[Invisible_Insane]

LOL...Santorum just needs to stop.

I think the most notable thing about that is that we've reached the point where Santorum + Gingrich is no longer greater than Romney, which means that we should really just stop talking about the primary.

i need to download a thesaurus extension for chrome

Why advertise the weaknesses of your vocabulary?

That and excludability is not feasible. If we implemented statutory prohibition for those unable to pay, the system would be plagued by inefficiency even more than our present disjointed system. That's especially true for emergency medical services. Consequently, healthcare has to be a collective endeavor.

But socialism, etc.

I really think that people who think of themselves as deficit hawks, bullshit about liberty aside, should endorse UHC merely on the grounds of cost.

 

[mckmas8808]

If the individual mandate is unconstitutional then uninsured people should be denied healthcare. Only people paying in should be getting service.

Hell yeah. I know it sounds crappy as hell to say, but damn this free loading BS. Hospitals shouldn't be forced to provide care to someone that doesn't have health insurance.

 

[Oblivion]

But socialism, etc.

I really think that people who think of themselves as deficit hawks, bullshit about liberty aside, should endorse UHC merely on the grounds of cost.

But the CBO said it costs twice as much as it did previously.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

But the CBO said it costs twice as much as it did previously.

Stay trollin'.

 

[Jim]

Hah.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/medvedev-slams-romney-anti-russia-comments-165913419.html

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev criticized Mitt Romney for his characterization of Russia as the United States' "No. 1 geopolitical foe," insisting his description of the current U.S.-Russia relationship was based more on "Hollywood" than on reality.

"Regarding ideological clichés, every time this or that side uses phrases like 'enemy No. 1,' this always alarms me, this smells of Hollywood and certain times [of the past]," Medvedev said in a press availability at the conclusion of a nuclear security summit in South Korea, according to Reuters.

The outgoing Russian leader advised Romney and other presidential contenders to "do at least two things."

"Use their head and consult their reason when they formulate their positions, and that they check the time—it is now 2012, not the mid-1970s," Medvedev declared.

His remarks come a day after Romney criticized President Barack Obama for getting caught on an open mic Monday telling Medvedev he'd have "more flexibility" in negotiations over a missile defense system and arms control issues after the upcoming 2012 election. Obama later said he was speaking to the reality of election year politics.

 

[PhoenixDark]

"You said you wanted your plan at the federal level, now you don't. Make up your mind."

Which would sound quite weak from the guy whose law just got shit canned...

 

[AlteredBeast]

Medvedev is right, but Romney has at least a point if he was talking about Russia and China in dealing with rare earth minerals, oil production and consumption, and such. China and Russia getting more power and more land contracts = USA getting less and paying more.

But the wording and nuance was oh-so-cliched from some post-First Blood Rambo flick.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Medvedev is right, but Romney has at least a point if he was talking about Russia and China in dealing with rare earth minerals, oil production and consumption, and such. China and Russia getting more power and more land contracts = USA getting less and paying more.

But the wording and nuance was oh-so-cliched from some post-First Blood Rambo flick.

"Romney had a point if you completely change the meaning of what he said to achieve a level of nuance he had no intent of reaching."

No standard user of the English language would take "#1 geopolitical foe" to mean "significant economic competitor. Let's be serious.

 

[AlteredBeast]

"Romney had a point if you completely change the meaning of what he said to achieve a level of nuance he had no intent of reaching."

No standard user of the English language would take "#1 geopolitical foe" to mean "significant economic competitor. Let's be serious.

ehhh, I could still see it. Nobody and I certainly hope the future GOP nominee for president believes Russia to actually be an enemy. A shady country, sure, but enemy? Its not like there are spies in the country anymore infiltrating government offices...

 

[Miletius]

Why do people keep saying if Kennedy votes yes, Roberts will follow? Are they on the same bowling team or something?

And why the fuck would a right wing judge like Roberts worry about voting against the individual mandate? As a conservative, if anything, him rejecting it would be the kind of mark one would think he'd want to leave in history.

Because some issues transcend politics and securing your name in the history books is one of them. He's not going to side with the losing minority no matter the outcome here.