1 First? 6-3 vote to overturn individual mandate.

2 Why we must absolutely win the House, Senate and Presidency this election. 

3 5-4 Mandate overturned - but large parts of law upheld including Medicare Expansion, pre-existing condition and healthcare until 26.

In order to get Kennedy on board as the 5th vote - there will have to be compromise.

4 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

5 (1) No severability clause
(2) The entire house of cards depends on forcing well people to buy insurance to "pay for" the rest of the mess.

It's all too intertwined.  There's no way the mandate will be tossed but the rest of the law will remain.

6 Are you kidding me?? Are you kidding me??

7 It better be overturned, the whole fucking lot of it.  Kennedy owes us after the pansy wansy "the poor unauthorized worker can't feed his family if we uphold this law!"  fucktardiness.

8 Complete WAG 5 - 4 complete overturn. Supremes want to stay supreme and upholding gives that power to the legislature and executive.

9 They did have arguments on severability didn't they? I assume that is why Patterico was saying 5-4 stiking all of it.

10 It is like waiting for the lab results to find out if a loved one dying, no?

11 Also it's always a good time for that song

12 It better be overturned, the whole fucking lot of it. Kennedy owes us after the pansy wansy "the poor unauthorized worker can't feed his family if we uphold this law!" fucktardiness.

If the poor wretches managed to survive Fast and Furious, at the very least we owe them employment.

13

Dear E.J.:

 

You cannot miss what you never had.

 

Dolt.

14 5-4 overturned mandate, 6-3 let congress deal w/ the rest of it

15
I predict a political ruling.

Or a punt. Or both.

16
Lots of the commentary that I have read predict that the entire thing will be struck down, or it will not be struck down at all.

Since the individual mandate is so crucial to how Obamacare functioned, the supremes will simply say that invalidating that crucial aspect of the law effectively nullifies what the law was intended to do.  Therefore, they will simply strike down the entire law, and essentially throw the ball back in congress' court.

So you are right that some aspects of the law were not challenged, but that doesn't mean that they will stand.

17

Joni Mitchell sucks.

That is all.

18 Restatement of the Pelosie Rule: We didn't know what we got 'til it was.

19 Were the health-care law to be eviscerated, those who battled so hard on its behalf might draw at least bittersweet comfort from what could be called the Joni Mitchell Rule, named after the folk singer who instructed us that “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

I like the Pelosi version.  You don't know what you've got 'til its passed into law."

20

Upheld 6-3.  Because Fuck You, that's why.

21 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

22 Also it's always a good time for that song

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2012 12:41 PM (FVIOu)

 

A good theme song for life is Rush's FreeWill.

23

I'm also going 6-3 striking the individual mandate.

 

Call me crazy, but I believe Sotomayor might drop a big one on the left on this.

24 I think there is a big lesson in today's Arizona case.

That would be don't over-read oral arguments.

With that in mind, an overturning of Obamcare does not seem likely.

That will be tragic.

Ergo Roberts and Kennedy will go down as the most hated justices in history.

And it will be the coup de grace for the reputation of SCOTUS. Which will become the most loathsome institution. More than Congress.

25 E.J. Dionne says you'll miss ObamaCare when it's gone

That's because E.J. Dionne is an idiot.  And every day this gets closer, I look like more of a psychic for already having started my series of posts on why the stuff the Liberals say you should like is so bad.

26

E.J. Dionne says you'll miss ObamaCare when it's gone.

 

I can see that...

 having my insurance premiums double every year has become a routine component of my angst.

 

 

 

27
So, ObamaCare ruling on Thursday and June unemployment numbers next week?

Barky may look back on June as being the good ol' days after the next few weeks.

28

6-3 whole thing gone...

 

 

How can they get past the point that they took the Severability clause OUT of the final Bill?  That goes directly to the INTENT of the Congress... ie that Congress MEANT to make the whole thing stand or fall all together.

29 Oh please let Romney win in November.

Ginsburg (79) - Retire
Kennedy (75) - Retire
Breyer (73) - Retire

30 Prediction: Mandate goes down 7-2 or 6-3.
 
5-4 split on whether the court can sever and keep the goodies (they can't).  This is the area the libs get to write their 'dissent in part.'

31 My health is fine.  But my gas tank is still empty, bitches.

32

Joni Mitchell sucks.
That is all.

 

In the Rock and Roll HOF.

 

KISS is not.

 

I will now pound my head into this wall.

33 Call me crazy, but I believe Sotomayor might drop a big one on the left on this.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 12:45 PM (B+qrE)

I too think she will go for striking it, but I think the whole enchilada.

34 Joni Mitchell Rule, named after the folk singer who instructed us that “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”


From Big Yellow Taxi, they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.  Took all the trees and put them in a tree museum, charged $1.50 just to, see 'um.


Yeah, EJ the newspapers are rapidly being put in a news museum and there will no longer be any liberal idiots that will pay you to write bull shit.


Besides, who would pay $1.50 to see or read your ugly shit.

35 It seems to me it's all or nothing. Didn't Scalia say that there was no way in hell he was going to read the 2k pages of the bill, or the 20k+ pages of the enabling regulations, to pick out which provisions are okay?

36 Yeah. I'll miss it. I would miss EJ Dumbass too, like a huge festering boil on my ass. Fucking dunce.

37 Fuck Joni Mitchel in the goat ass. CommieCare dies.

38

E.J. Dionne is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable writer.

 

"We'll miss it when it's gone".  Sorta like an impacted molar, or an abcess.

Or the chicken pox, or shingles.  I miss that stuff, after it's over.  Sniff.

 

This "law" or "act" was the must stupendous overreach and misuse of legislative power I can ever remember.   A major-major mega - major piece of policy voted for in Congress, and nobody admitted knowing what exactly was in it  - "You have to pass the law to find out what's inside!" - stuttered Nancy Pelosi.

Passed the Senate by "budget reconciliation", passed the House by total strongarm tactics, with ONE Republican voting for it.  No consultation with the minority (at the time).  And the majority of the American public is disgusted with it and wants it overturned?  You betcha!

39

I'm gonna go with the longshot dark horse: Something to the tune of "we prefer to wait until after the elections!"

Why? Because that'd be entertaining!  And clearly they're here to entertain us!

But my backup bet is 5-4 scrap the mandate, leave the law.  Why? Because that's the best punt they can come up with, even though Severability was specifically removed in legislative sessions.

FWIW, that's a loss for us. (Per Ace's reasoning above, I'd also add that the Essential Health Benefits screw over the insurers as well, by ensuring that only people who want those services sign up in addition to the sick.)  It'd be a win-win for the Progs, either they get their fancy law, or they get to suck the market dry.

40 The US possessions in the Caribbean — St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix — give a 90 percent tax credit to US citizens living there at least 183 days a year, resulting in an effective tax rate of just 3.5 percent.

41 E.J. Dionne says you'll miss ObamaCare when it's gone



Let's see how he stands by that comment when someone kicks him in the nads and the doctors visit bankrupts him and the government death panel decides it would be cheaper to cut them off instead of treating the injury

42

I am a fan of the Motley Crue rule:

 

Girl, don't go away mad. Girl, just go away.

43 I try to take comfort in thinking that even if the Court declares it Constitutional, that doesn't mean it can't be repealed.

Then I remember who would be in charge of repealing it.

44

Ginsburg (79) - Retire
Kennedy (75) - Retire
Breyer (73) - Retire

Scalia is 76. 

 

This election is consequential in every direction at every level. 

45 5-4, unconstitutional.  How can any human being, Supreme or otherwise, find any part of this POS constitutional because it is so GD complicated.  If I were a Supreme, I'd throw my hands up and say, "How they hell can I say every element of this monster is constitutional?  I can't, so the whole fucking thing has to go."

46 What are the odds Kennedy will side with striking the whole law?

Kennedy is Roman Catholic but how much of a Roman Catholic is he?

47 The hell with it: 7-2 Obama loses the "Wise Latina" in a move to assert independence. Her concurring opinion: You don't trust me with a fork, your shouldn't have given me this robe. Ginsberg, just to spite him before retiring.

48 reposting from the first SCOTUS thread:

Michelle Malkin: With fate of Obamacare in question, HHS cranks up pace of spending to implement the law

http://tinyurl.com/7wsn6eg

49 I'm sure all the people released from Soviet Gulags missed the gawddamned exercise too.

50 "Mustard Boy" E.J. Dijon also thinks that Catholics should be happy with the contraceptive mandate.

51 My prediction is a 4-way between the ladies of the court and Judge Antonin "Ramrod" Scalia..

52 I cannot see the mandate being allowed to stand by any stretch of judicial prudence.  The rest, I am not so sure, but due to severability being removed from the bill, and also the concept that the judiciary should not be creating law lead me to believe that the court would overturn the entirety and instruct congress to try again.  I just don't see how the court could do any different in a rational world.

53 Scalia is 76.

This election is consequential in every direction at every level. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)


I can't imagine Scalia retiring.  He loves the law.

54 I predict that no matter the ruling, SCOAMF will still stand.

55 E.J. Dionne-- "You'll miss ObamaCare when it's gone"...? wth? Most of it doesn't even get implemented till-- 2013.

56 30 Oh please let Romney win in November.

Ginsburg (79) - Retire
Kennedy (75) - Retire
Breyer (73) - Retire

Ginsburg will be there until she drops dead in the chair.

Kennedy is too self-absorbed to retire.

Breyer has nothing better to do than ruin our country. Again, he will be there until he falls out of the same chair as Ginsburg.

57 Lets see Tuesday Eric Holder is held in contempt of the House and his case referred to a grand jury.

Thursday President Obama's signature piece of legislation on health care is smacked down in its entirety.

Friday until Monday, massive quantities of pudding will be expended.

Friday until Monday, Obama will try to putt his way out of this massive sand trap.  Alas the Great and Mighty Sarlac is living in that sand trap.

58 I just don't see how the court could do any different in a rational world.

Well there's your problem...

59

Prediction- confusingly split votes; like a 6-3 vote to overturn the mandate, 5-4 to overturn the rest.  But I've no idea what SCOTUS will do. The only thing that would surprise me would be a 9-0 vote either way.

Barky will make a major announcement Thursday around noon (Syria or Iran or Cuba; maybe he'll bomb an aspirin factory  in Sudan or explain why he personally killed bin Laden)  and won't take any questions from the press.

Whenever I hear about the health care mandate I read it as man- date. Does this mean I'm gay?  If so, how do I tell my wife?

60 Then I remember who would be in charge of repealing it.

You criticize the new Mittens 4.1 firmware without even giving it a fair test run.  That sucks, man.

61 I like to be optimistic: 7-2 killing the mandate. 6-3 killing the Medicaid extortion. 5-4 memory holing the entire law.

62 Any one who quotes Joanie Mitchell is too old and in thrall of the ideas of the sixties to be relevant now. Who is he writing for, Walter Cronkite? I am so tired of baby-boomers and aging hippies perpetually declaring it is always all about them. Get lost.

63 If the Supremes open this door nothing will stop the federal government from mandating anything they possibly can.

64 I don't even want to make a prediction,no decision would surprise me at this point.SCOTUS is too big for their britches.

65 I agree, it gets thrown out. It might not have, if the Obama administration hadn't been so offensive, arrogant, and abusive toward the Supreme Court. That's enough to turn even friends against you, especially as pompous and self-important as judges are.

66 My only prediction is that-- *if* the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional--the Court will hold that is- not severable.

67

Wow, that Atlantic article in the sidebar (first item in News dump) is breathtaking in its stupidity.  The first item in his sequence:

 

First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don't even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.

 

...is so fraught with dishonesty and misrepresentation as to make reading another sentence a sheer act of willpower.  If you can stomach it, the flaws in the remaining sequential items are so obvious that they made a wise decision not to open it to comments.

 

It doesn't even pass the "turn the tables" test - if Democrats had been the "beneficiaries" of the same situation, it would have been a Triumph of Democracy!™ and Textbook Example of the Prudence of Our Founding Fathers' System of Governance.

68 Ugh, it is scary that moron justices are so inept at this whole law thing. So, yeah, let's split the baby and keep the "popular" things. Bullshit, the whole thing is unpopular and you know what? Every January about a million people march on DC and it has no impact on the Court. So, that "popularity" thing only goes one way. The law was stupidly written (remember how there are glitches in the writing with the state exchanges, exempting states?) and they took out the severability clause, so fuck em. If the law is so "popular," let Congress go back and pass it again without the mandate. And you know what, maybe it's time for insurnace companies, among others, to start fighting this whole give services for free mindset that Congress has. That's an unpaid mandate...a taking.

69 I dunno.  But I suspect that even the liberal wing of the Court will be wary of voting in favor of the individual mandate, because the SCOTUS has a long memory, and it understands that Administrations come and go.

And if Obama signs a bill that orders every American to eat peas or else pay a fine today, then a future conservative president may sign a bill requiring every American to eat brocolli, or else suffer the consequences

 I suspect even RBG understands to where that road leads.

70
Is there really definitely going to be a contempt vote in the House?

71

6-3 for striking the mandate, 6-3 to uphold the rest of the law and let Congress figure it out.  Kennedy will not vote to throw out the whole law IMO.  Roberts will be in majority on both and write both opinions.  Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg dissent on mandate and Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissent on upholding the rest of it. 

 

#29 There is Supreme Court precedent for finding severability in a law when Congress didn't write it in.  Kennedy wrote the opinion in that case.  Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented in that case and they will in thios one for the same reason.  I also think this will be the necessary bargain to get Sotomoayor to vote for striking the mandate; she won't do that if it means losing the whole law.

 

Roberts really, really doesn't want these to be 5-4 decisions.  And I believe that philosophically he won't support throwing out the whole law anyway.  There's plenty of time for Congress to fix it if it needs fixing, and that's their job. 

72

If they don't overturn all of it, the judges might as well burn their building to the ground.

 

Other than the curiosity of watching  them managing the transition into a police state, who would give a fuck what else they ever rule?

 

This ruling will answer the question of are we citizens, or subjects.

73 If the Supremes open this door nothing will stop the federal government from mandating anything they possibly can.

There's a Chevy Volt in your future.

74 There should be a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices.  I some point you've served long enough. 


Don't the clerks do all the dog work?

75 burn the witch, I was just reading that fallows piece. Do you think it's worth a post? I sort of hate giving traffic to idiocy. It is a bit of a freak-out though.

76 If the Supremes open this door nothing will stop the federal government from mandating anything they possibly can.

There's a Chevy Volt in your future.
Posted by: The U.S. Commerce Department


Fuck.

I see Tesla rolled out their fireplace on wheels last week.

77 I'm calling it 7-2 to scrap the whole thing.  There's no way that the Supreme Court wants to have it dismissed as a "partisan" decision that Congress must actually abide the limits placed on them in the Constitution.

78 Intrade has the mandate to be found unconstitutional at 74%.....all you big doubters have a prime opportunity to make some contrarian bucks.
 
I'm long on pudding futures myself.

79 There's a Chevy Volt in your future.

Do we get free fire insurance if we are saddled with this car?

80 OT prediction: Biden gets thrown under the bus.  Was going to happen later this year but Obama may need the media distraction now.

81 a future conservative president may sign a bill requiring every American to eat brocolli, or else suffer the consequences Mandatory firearms ownership to regulate the militia.

82 where are you guys getting the sixth vote in your 6-3 predictions? The liberals on the court are Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, who helped the law into life. Which seems likely to join the conservatives/moderates?

83 Those goons in the ace video remind me of Kurgan in the Highlander movie.

84

My biggest concern is that if the law is overturned HHS will double down on the ads they've been running (at our expesne no less!) telling people what was lost (currently telling people what's been "gained."

It's like MediScare only worse. If that swings enough Low Info voters, we could be in for a while November ride (although I count this as "Worst Case Scenerio.")

85 I predict gnashing of teeth and endless talking heads blabbering on and on about every bit of minutiae of the ruling.  I predict health care costs rising for everyone, lower reimbursements for me and an ever-increasing line of more dissatisfied patients than ever before.  I predict bankruptcy for the Country as a whole, every single State as a whole, and millions of local governments as well.  I predict plagues and locusts (literally), frogs (figuratively) and more and more boils on more and more people with nothing to cure them.

Other than that though, I'm quite optimistic about the whole thing...

86 Any one who quotes Joanie Mitchell is too old and in thrall of the ideas of the sixties to be relevant now. Who is he writing for, Walter Cronkite? I am so tired of baby-boomers and aging hippies perpetually declaring it is always all about them. Get lost.

I'm definitely in the boomer age group, but I couldn't agree more. Let's face it, Joni had her day, and that day was June 4 1982. If the poor dear tried to really belt out a tune these days she'd cough up a lung.

87 You think Hill will take it?

88 fallows? Anyway, the court can kill the bill and just lament that if only they hadn't struck the severability clause...shucks darnit (in dicta, of course). Saves the supremes from their true god, leftwing cocktail bullshit, by blakming the morons in congress.

89 76 It's worth it.

90 Tonic Dog, Biden will probably do it himself.  After he extolls the bottoms of PRC buses are cleaner than American buses.

91 Prediction?.....Pain.

92 Obamacare?  Never heard of it.

93

Do you all remember the smirking, big bird gavel weilding retard Nana Botox's triumphant march to watch the Idiot in Chief sign the signature shit sandwich? When that turd is flushed I gonna relive that moment. And anticipate her snot slinging, arm waving, public breakdown press conference where she accuses the Teaparty of using racism to strike down her monsterous abortion. How sweet can life get?

94

I predict Thursday I will get up, have a cup of coffee, and drop a big, stinky turd. And, there will be much rejoicing.

95 Mandatory firearms ownership to regulate the militia.

Posted by: toby928© at June 25, 2012 12:55 PM (QupBk)

LOL, there is at least one town in GA that passed a law requiring that.

96
I'd rather we gnash our teeth on our impending doom when we all drown by the rising sea levels.

97 Now I have a stomach ache.

The thought of this abomination standing is making me physically ill.

98 **If the Supremes open this door nothing will stop the federal government from mandating anything they possibly can.** Sec. of Health Santorum forcing psych testing on gays and making abstinence the deal at hospitals. Just to say, fuck you to the left.

99 Everyone must buy a monthly subscription to Glenn Beck TV, implementing the First Amendment the hard way.

100
The SCOTUS gave me an enema this morning.

101 I think Rockmom is on to something.

Roberts is willing to negotiate to get more than a 5-4 ruling.  And we should be thankful, as such rulings are strong foundations, even if they give up a little bit.  So long as they curb this commerce clause expansion, it's worth things like the 26 year olds on mommy's insurance being left alone.  A 6-3 decision overturning the ind mandate would be awesome.

Roberts had turned out to be an outstanding Chief Justice.

102 Why is everybody so down on Joni Mitchell?  It isn't her fault that asshole liberals took part of her song. Hell, she should sue for plagiarism and copyright violation.

103 9-0 tax anti-injunction act does not apply
7-2 mandate tossed (Breyer/Kagan dissent)
5-4 entire act tossed on non-severability

104 if the court does the right thing- which I doubt- but if they do, will congress then vote to keep the few positive things i.e keeping your parents insurance till 26 etc

105

63: "I am so tired of baby-boomers ....."

Sorry  kid, get over it. It IS all about us.We're the most imporntant generation EVAH.

 

 

If ACA goes down, the stock market will go up 200 points Thursday. Barky will take credit for it .

106 I went long on unicorn futures. Have any windows you need washed, dude??

107 rockmom I don't know how they could find the individual mandate unconstitutional and then find it severable. Clement from the oral arguments on severability-- ************* JUSTICE KAGAN: So Mr. Clement, let's start with the text. Then you suggest, and I think that there is — this is right, that there is a textual basis for saying that the guaranteed-issue and the community ratings provisions are tied to the mandate. And you said — you pointed to where that was in the findings. Is there a textual basis for anything else, because I've been unable to find one. It seems to me that if you look at the text, the sharp dividing line is between guaranteed-issue and community ratings on the one hand, everything else on the other. MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Kagan I would be delighted to take you through my view of the text and why there are other things that have to fall. The first place I would ask you to look is finding J which is on the same page 43 A. And as I read that, that's a finding that the individual mandate is essential to the operation of the exchanges. But there are other links between guaranteed-issue and community ratings and the exchanges. And there I think it's just the way that the exchanges are supposed to work. And the text makes this clear is they are supposed to provide a market where people can compare community rated insurance. That's what makes the exchanges function.

108 GWAR Rule : Crush, Kill, Destroy

109 I predict 5-4 to uphold the entire law. 

I do this as a way of mentally hedging my bets. 

Honestly, from a political perspective that outcome -- Obamacare completely upheld -- would be the BEST thing for Romney.  The law ain't getting any more popular (liberals seem to have this touchingly stupid belief that a SCOTUS decision upholding a law widely loathed by America will suddenly make it popular and help Obama), and it would be a massive albatross around Obama as well provide an even sharper rationale for the Romney campaign: vote for me or this monstrosity will never, ever, go away.

The best outcome for the nation?  Fully overturned.  But it ain't gonna happen.  If it's struck down in any way, it will be partially.  Kennedy is a baby-splitter, as is Roberts.  (And honestly I prefer that approach as a matter of jurisprudence and judicial modesty.) 

The least-best outcome for Romney?  Mandate goes, but takes popular provisions like the preexisting conditions with it.  Provides a tiny opening for Obama to demagogue the GOP with "you took health care away from kids with terminal diseases, you assholes!"

That said, there really are no BAD outcomes for Romney/the GOP here in terms of winning November, only great vs. slightly-less-great vs. very good.

110 In Clement's brief you can find the actual text of the bill quoted.

111 You know what, if Roberts is smart, he can sell a 5-4 ass raping to Kennedy by what I said earlier, hey fuck Cognress, they took out the severability clause, blame them.

112 I can't believe there are so many people in this thread fooled by Sotomayor.

I could be wrong, but don't see her in any way voting against O-Care.

113

I can't imagine Scalia retiring. He loves the law.

 

No, he probably will not, but I would rather not trust his Lipitor prescription to keep us in business.

114

6-3 for striking the mandate,6-3 to uphold the rest of the law and let Congress figure it out. Kennedy will not vote to throw out the whole law IMO. Roberts will be in majority on both and write both opinions. Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg dissent on mandate and Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissent on upholding the rest of it.

 

 

I can see that and their excuse for voting to uphold the remainder of the law will be that it's too big and cumbersome for them to read the whole thing and try to figure out which parts are constitutional and which are not and that anyone who wants to file suit against any of those measures is free to do so in the future.

115 BREAKING: Arizona will continue to have the least costly Sidewalk Snow Shovelin' services in the nation. News at 11.

116 So long as they curb this commerce clause expansion, it's worth things like the 26 year olds on mommy's insurance being left alone.

No.  It's really, really not.  I don't think you understand exactly how far-reaching the effects of so benign-seeming a clause would be.  I'm not kidding when I say that one, alone, could cause huge disruptions in health insurance- and therefore in your health care.

And things like Guaranteed Issue and immediate coverage of Pre-Existing conditions?  Those, without a mandate, would lead to single payer in 10 years, at the outside (and potentially much, much sooner).  And when was the last time the Congress successfully repealed a law?

The whole thing has to go .  All of it.

117 Ace --

Write a post about the Fallows piece.  It's awesome.  Who CARES about giving some miniscule amount of "traffic" to him?  Seriously?  We still care about these sorts of things in the 2012 blog world?

It's rich, meaty, and hilarious.  Tear into it like a chunk of raw hobo-flesh.

118 E.J. should reacquire his container of footwear polish.....

119 "Were the health-care law to be eviscerated, those who battled so hard on its behalf might draw at least bittersweet comfort from what could be called the Joni Mitchell Rule, named after the folk singer who instructed us that 'you donÂ’t know what youÂ’ve got till itÂ’s gone.'"

The only people who will miss an otherwise deplorable program when it's gone are the ones who benefited from it.

120 If the justices throw out the mandate, which looks likely, and don't throw out the rest of the law, it creates a debacle for the insurance industry as well as for congress.  I just can't see a majority of justices going along with that.

121 Vic, Jim, I fart in your general direction. The temper tantrums of baby boomers and their demands to be coddled and catered to have led to abortion on demand, disintegration of the family, non-stop social spending, and yes, Obamacare.

122 Kagan should have recused herself from this case.  Pure conflict of interest.

123

Ace,

 

I am guessing Sotomayor based on her questions during the arguments.  The government really made a lousy case for itself on this thing and she pretty much said so. 

 

BUT.....I also think the opinion itself may be disappointing to us, because in order to get Sotomayor's vote Roberts will have to write an opinion that is very narrow and gives Congress a road map to fix the bill so that it passes Constitutional muster, i.e. call it a tax and use the taxing power of Congress.  I fear it will come out more as a finding of a drafting error than a ballbusting of a  massive overreach of government power.

 

There are some really big possible outcomes in the way this opinion can be drafted that not a lot of people are talking about.  I do not think it will be a slam-dunk "this bill sucks, get rid of it" ruling at all.  I think it will be a "Congress, you meant well but here's where you messed up" ruling. 

124 >>but I would rather not trust his Lipitor prescription to keep us in business.

The community resources efficiency panel says men his age get baby aspirin only. 

125 And remember, "no spiking the football".

Just throw it at the idiot making that statement's head.

126 The least-best outcome for Romney? Mandate goes, but takes popular provisions like the preexisting conditions with it. Provides a tiny opening for Obama to demagogue the GOP with "you took health care away from kids with terminal diseases, you assholes!" Don't you think congress will pass a few quick fixes for the few good things? besides many states already have preexisting condition laws

127 he's saying I'll miss Obamacare as much as I miss Joni Mitchell? That actually makes sense dude.

128 You know who'd make a great Supreme Court justice if my bud Barack gets re-elected? ME, that's who! #1; I have almost a hundred lawsuits pending, #2; I'm totally self-educated in the law, and #3; I have a picture of Eric Holder cornholing Elian Gonzalez before we shipped him back to Castro. How else do you think I get away with so much crap???

129 if the court does the right thing- which I doubt- but if they do,
will congress then vote to keep the few positive things

i.e keeping your parents insurance till 26 etc

Posted by: Avi at June 25, 2012 12:59 PM (51xVX)

Positive? Really?

130 Everyone better pray that the entire thing is struck down. We will not have 60 votes for repeal in the Senate and you can not count on the balless Republicans to go nuclear option despite the Dems doing that for at least one law this past year.

131 I'll be glad when Congress mandates the purchase of guns, per the Constitution.

132

Sadly, having read the Arizona decision and Scalia's dissent, I am now predicting a 5-4 decision upholding the individual mandate, and a 6-3 decision upholding the rest of Obamacare, with Kennedy providing the deciding vote on the mandate, and Roberts dissenting on the mandate, but voting to uphold the rest of it.  I think the Court is unwilling to have the inevitable process of unwinding the Leviathan of the federal government's overreach under the Commerce Clause begin in the Court, and is going to kick repeal back into the political process, assuming that the American people will give Obama an up-or-down vote on nationalized healthcare in November.  

 

In short, chickenshit.

133 I haven't prayed this much since I thought I was pregnant in college. 

134 Seems to me if they were to toss out part of the bill, and uphold the rest of the bill, wouldn't that mean they had to actually read the thousands of pages of crapola to come to a decision? Will they do that?

135

6-3 Upheld with Roberts writing the majority decision.

 

The end of the Republic begins promptly on Friday morning

136

Kagan should have recused herself from this case.

 

He should never have been put on the court to begin with.

137 The Ginsberg hag statements about the open vitriol on the case makes me cautiously optimistic on the ruling.  But it will be 5-4 as Patterico predicts.


Besides, I understand he has a pretty good record on these predictions.

138 >>>BUT.....I also think the opinion itself may be disappointing to us, because in order to get Sotomayor's vote Roberts will have to write an opinion that is very narrow and gives Congress a road map to fix the bill so that it passes Constitutional muster, i.e. call it a tax and use the taxing power of Congress.

I wouldn't have a problem with this at all, because as a matter of Constitutional doctrine it would be correct.  It's not a mere 'drafting' error, btw, it's a far more substantive issue that you might think because the politics of calling something a tax -- and going to the people with a proposition of "let's massively raise taxes in order to give poor and lazy people healthcare that will also impact the quality of yours" -- is a mega-fucking-FAIL. Which is precisely why Team Obama tried this very bait-and-switch and the Court absolutely wouldn't let them get away with it.

139 The Supreme Court will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word from the Whitehouse that the President has dissolved the court permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic will be swept away forever. The regional bureaucrats now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the states in line. Fear of this Michelles' CENSORED

140 And what the fuck is the issue with DRUDGE?

Almost every link is to some left-wing rag like the NYT or WaPO or Politico, etc.

I am done with that site. If I wanted to read that tripe, I would visit those sites.

141 If the law is so "popular," let Congress go back and pass it again without the mandate.Posted by: joeindc44

But.its.not.

Even E J Dijonaise admits it isn't!!
"The ACA is the victim of a vicious cycle: Obamacare polls badly. "

142 Drudge has a link to this sweet news about Sandusky's last trip to the slammer (he's back there in the same place now after his conviction):
 
An inmate who identified himself only as “Josh” told The Daily that he and other prisoners sang well-known lyrics from Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” to Sandusky.

“At night, we were singing ‘Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone,’” Josh was quoted as saying.

143 Help me, I think I'm falling....

144 If this stands I'm cancelling my insurance because I'll be a goner anyway.  My family history is rife with everything, I'm a diagnostic mess because I never have anything normal and I smoke.  I'll be suprised if they don't round me right away and make an example of me.

145 Everyone knows that bill does not contain a severability clause, so logically if part of it goes it all must go. There will be some serious contortions to keep any part of it if any part is struck down. That doesn't mean they won't try however.

146 G*d,

I don't ask for much...yeah I get cranky on occasion but PUHLEEZE help strike down this law.

I'll be good.  I promise.

Yours truly,
me

147 I can't believe there are so many people in this thread fooled by Sotomayor.

I could be wrong, but don't see her in any way voting against O-Care.

Posted by: EXILE at June 25, 2012 01:01 PM (O0lVq)

 

Read my post #124.  It all depends on WHAT Roberts puts forward for an actual vote and how the opinion is worded.  "You can't impose a mandate to buy insurance in any form, ever" probably wouldn't get a vote from Sotomayor.  But "you can do a mandate, but you can't do it under the Commerce Clause, you have to structure it as a tax and use Congress' taxing power" might.  There are some hints about this approach in some of the lower court rulings. 

 

And don't believe the bullshit from either side about this law being unworkable without the individual mandate.  It is very workable, which is why the Court will uphold the rest of the law.  The insurance companies won't like it, but tough shit for them.  They shouldn't have gotten into bed with Pelosi and Obama on this in the first place.

148 Thunderb: us boomers have been told since we were little kids that the world revolved around us. We're responsible for suburbia, malls,  rock and roll, Woodstock, the summer of Love and the fall of the Berlin wall. C'mon, man, don't harsh my mellow.  

149

Posted by: rockmom at June 25, 2012 01:04 PM (qE3AR)

I get the feeling that's already been considered anyway. (The "write it as a Tax" thing.)

I'm not sure you could craft a ruling that completely screwed over the mandate including preventing congress from issuing a tax for which insurance would act as a substitute. (e.g. a "non-compliance penalty")

Put simply, the power of congress to tax is well established, and the power of them to screw with the tax code to "encourage" activity is also well established.  How do you craft a ruling that gets around this?

150 10 It is like waiting for the lab results to find out if a loved one dying, no? Posted by: Chowderhead at June 25, 2012 12:41 PM (AQ6wq) ---------------------------------------------------- Yes, and that loved one is liberty.

151 mpfs, boob pics or forget it......

152

[Seems to me if they were to toss out part of the bill, and uphold the rest of the bill, wouldn't that mean they had to actually read the thousands of pages of crapola to come to a decision?[/i]

 

 

They could issue a narrow ruling that only addresses the specific challenges brought before the court, which I believe were the individual mandate and the threats to withhold all Medicaid/Medicare funds from states. They could punt everything else by claiming that those issues weren't brought before the court and therefore would not be addressed.

153 The Joni Mitchell Rule is better than any possible Joan Baez Rule could ever be.

154

Will anyone miss E.J. Dionne's writing when he's gone?

Maybe Maureen Dowd will.

155 Write a post about the Fallows piece.

Bleccch.  It's a predictable screed about how the Nazi courts is stealin' the peoples' rights!!!eleventy11!!  The kind of complaint you never hear when the Nazi courts are striking down popularly-supported legislation like gay marriage prohibitions.

That Fallows would exert himself to commit his little rant to pixels is one more sign that the Leftards are losing and they know it.

156 Please do give the Fallows thing a post. It's one thing for commenters at ASHQ to go nuclear and quite another for somebody writing in the Atlantic. Says a lot about the mental state of the libs these days, with the demise of their messiah...

157 Don't tell me you cannot eat everything on your plate with a spoon. Stop your bleatin' and start your eaten'!

158 JeffB - I agree with you 100%.  I would expect to see some of that in a dissent by Scalia, that this whole law was a giant subterfuge by a Congress that was too scared to call a tax a tax, and too scared to actually raise taxes to pay for their desired policy outcome, and so they passed something that was unconstitutional.  But John Roberts won't say that.

159 6-3 overturn the mandate
5-4 to overturn whole law.

You heard it here first.

160 Given Kennedy's decision in the Arizona immigration case, I can see him once again trying for some kind of "one for you, and one for you too" split decision.

Yeah, becuase the law is like that.

It's about the equity, not the real issues which don't always map to your desired outcome.

Justices like Kennedy are the reason this country is in so much trouble today.

I am a little sick of contrived and manufactured outcomes because some dickhead justice is trying to appeal to some inner sense of fairness, as opposed to following the law and Constitution.

161 If they uphold this crap I'm fucking doomed for healthcare. The all powerful HHS will deem my medication too expensive to continue.  I can see it coming like a freight train. I'll just stand on the tracks and make it easy on everyone.

162 This grieves me to say. Kennedy is incapable of striking any part of this law. And if he secretly believes the individual mandate is improper, he will nonetheless rationalize its propriety because to strike it down would necessarily mean striking the whole law. There is zero indication in his history that he would consider taking what he regards as too extreme a position. It will be 5-4 wholly n favor, I despair to predict. Kennedy will do the usual phony CYA thing of arguing "strict" limitations on any future interpretation of the decision, which of course will have no effect in the future. He will say health care is unique, and thereby open the constitutional gates to absolute power, crushing hopes of reviving our Constitution.

163 Don't you think congress will pass a few quick fixes for the few good things?
besides many states already have preexisting condition laws

No, I don't.
No, they don't.

HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) created the idea that people moving from one insurance company to another could have pre-existing condition waiting periods waived.  Anyone who had not "maintained creditable coverage" could have coverage for pre-existing conditions denied for up-to 18 months (most insurance companies just use 12, but I'm pretty sure the statute says 1 .  That 18 (or 12) months must be pro-rated if the participant had carried creditable coverage, but there was too big a gap between losing the previous coverage, and obtaining the new, or if the previous coverage had been for less than 12 months.

Realize that this is far, far different from requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions immediately.  Insurance companies constantly have people obtaining and dropping coverage.  So when you drop your coverage one place (leave an employer, the employer drops coverage, whatever) and obtain it somewhere else, it more or less "cancels out" other such transactions.

The requirement for immediately covering preexisting conditions means that someone who never carried coverage can wait until they're diagnosed with something major, obtain coverage, and that the insurance company has to pay from day one.  Which means that most people, especially if they're relatively healthy, will drop (or choose never to obtain) coverage until they have some major issue.

Worse, without a mandate, people with one time issues will get coverage (guaranteed issue, remember) for the duration of treatment, and then drop their coverage again until they have another issue.

164 My moronic opinion based on my expertise at being moronic:

6-3 The Mandate is constitutional but the rest of the law is struck down as unconstitutional forcing millions of Americans to pay thousands of dollars extra a year for nothing. 

165 You'll miss me when I'm gone!

166
Three-thousand pages of gobbledygook.

167 Prodigy?? The best dance band in the world? Really? This is the kind of shit that makes me wanna shout!

168 mpfs, boob pics or forget it...... Posted by: G*D



Thou art a perv.

169 33 Joni Mitchell sucks.That is all. In the Rock and Roll HOF. KISS is not. I will now pound my head into this wall. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 12:47 PM (B+qrE) Neither is RUSH, pound my head with you.

170

I'm hoping, mind you, just hoping that the AZ law was the SCOTUS' punt for this session and will lop off Ocare at the neck.

 

The AZ law is a bit of a disappointment.  I was hoping that they'd recognize state's rights a bit more than they did.  That's why I'm not holding my breath on the Ocare decision.  We still have too many limp liberal dicks on the court.

171 #153 Really, all they have to say is that the judgment of the rest of the law is moot, because Congress can fix the mandate to make it all work if they want to, they just can't do it under the Commerce Clause.

172 You'll miss me when I'm gone! Posted by: Genital Herpes at June 25, 2012 01:13 PM (KXm42) --------------------------------------------------------- Don't forget me!

173

E.J. Dionne can suck my left one.  Ever since Obamacare became enacted, my oldest son's speech therapy and occupational therapy were declined coverage by multiple insurance companies.

He has severe verbal apraxia, which he was born with, and prior to the healthcare legislation, his speech and OT therapies were covered.  After the law was initiated, all of our insurance companies said they could not provide coverage unless his apraxia was caused by an injury, seizure, or other brain trauma.  Nevermind that he can't speak correctly without intensive therapy...so I've had to pay out-of-pocket, which costs me around $800 per month.

I'm willing to bet that if Obamacare is negated, insurance companies may start covering these therapies again, especially since there will be less market uncertainty and less regulations that inhibit them.

174 Jim, Boomers are also responsible for the drug culture, the need for rehab, the sexualization of children in media, the rejection of God and the worship of Gaia through agencies like the EPA. No thanks. But I will credit the music and the malls. Your parents made the suburbs, just like a boomer to take credit and reap the benefit of the labor of others.

175 I don't know what few good things in it folks are talking about. There is nothing good in it.

176

And don't believe the bullshit from either side about this law being unworkable without the individual mandate. It is very workable, which is why the Court will uphold the rest of the law. The insurance companies won't like it, but tough shit for them. They shouldn't have gotten into bed with Pelosi and Obama on this in the first place.

 

WHHHHHHAAAAAAA?????

What parts of the law are workable without the mandate? Because Economics (and to a lesser extent the results of EMTALA) seeming to provide evidence that this is just fundamentally wrong.

With GI and Community rating, insurance companies have no chance of surviving the free-rider problem.  And what sucks for them sucks for us (since even Non-Profit Insurers have to break even.)

Granted the people who get healthcare via an employer (where HIPPA tends to provide a certain level of GI if you had continuing coverage for a previous period) will likely be ok, but others won't. (And I expect some cost shifting from individual plans to group plans, pissing off employers and employees alike.)

177 I have this sick feeling that someday(maybe not oon this decision)John Roberts is going to praised by the left as a moderate voice.

178 >>The end of the Republic begins promptly on Friday morning

It's been over for awhile. Like, since before I was born.

179 You'll miss me when I'm gone!

180 The requirement for immediately covering preexisting conditions means that someone who never carried coverage can wait until they're diagnosed with something major, obtain coverage, and that the insurance company has to pay from day one. Which means that most people, especially if they're relatively healthy, will drop (or choose never to obtain) coverage until they have some major issue.

Worse, without a mandate, people with one time issues will get coverage (guaranteed issue, remember) for the duration of treatment, and then drop their coverage again until they have another issue.

 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 01:13 PM (8y9MW)

 

Congress can fix that by enacting a stiff tax penalty for people who wait until they have a diagnosis to buy insurance.  There are many ways to "incent" people to buy insurance without forcing them to. 

181 If Obamacare gets struck down, I'll be following the Dead Kennedy's Rule:  Too Drunk To Fuck.

182 SMOD thread up from CAC and its not a poll.

183 >>Neither is RUSH, pound my head with you.

Neither is Weird Al.  Rock and Roll Hall of Farce, it is.

184

Really, all they have to say is that the judgment of the rest of the law is moot, because Congress can fix the mandate to make it all work if they want to, they just can't do it under the Commerce Clause.

 

 

Now you've made me even more pessimistic because I can completely see that happening.

 

"The individual mandate as defined by the current law is unconstitutional; however, nothing in this ruling prevents Congress from going back and redefining it in a constitutional manner."

185 And don't believe the bullshit from either side about this law being unworkable without the individual mandate

No, it's not.  Having worked in Health Care (both representing doctors/hospitals and working for an Insurance company) let me say: if the mandate goes and nothing else does, the Health Insurance industry is dead, and we will have single payer in next-to-no-time.

I don't think you understand exactly how precisely insurance companies balance intake vs. outgo, and exactly what human nature says about what people would do if they didn't have to carry insurance, but insurance companies were required to accept new participants at any time with no questions asked, and provide coverage for all conditions from day one.

186 Liberty - you don't know what you've got till its gone

187 Sometimes I think the Democratic Congress made it 2000+ pages just so the Supremes would NOT read all the way thru it and would rule in  favor as a result. The Dems knew very few people could tolerate reading the entire thing.  I also don't think they expected it to go this far in court.  Their little ploy may have  had the opposite effect and just PO'ed SCOTUS.

188 Rush belongs in the hall. Kiss not so much. And what the hell is with the veneration of that shrieking bag lady Janis Joplin? She's horrible and untalented and then killed herself. Why couldn't Yoko Ono have that kind of dignity?

189 Agree - ObamaCare, in its entirety, goes down 6-3.
Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and *gasp* Breyer throw it out.

190 >>>I think the Court is unwilling to have the inevitable process of unwinding the Leviathan of the federal government's overreach under the Commerce Clause begin in the Court, and is going to kick repeal back into the political process,

They are too smart to believe that. They know historically governments only amass power, not relinquish it. And they know that they are the last bastion of limits on amassing said power. That is their job. They know if they punt this back to the political side that they are effectively writing a blank check of power back to the federal government, and that enumeration within the Constitution will have been rendered essentially meaningless. If they choose to uphold the law, they have made a conscious choice to declare federal powers to be all encompassing with specific exclusions, instead of narrow with specific inclusions and exclusions to those inclusions.

191 Might as well Aim High (h/t USAF): 9-0, goodbye to all of it.

DC will explode with bought and paid-for Leftist rioters. They will burn all nine justices in effigy and poop on the SC steps.

192 Another take on Joni Mitchell's song:  Liberty - you don't know what you have until it's gone.

193 182If Obamacare gets struck down, I'll be following the Dead Kennedy's Rule: Too Drunk To Fuck.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 25, 2012 01:18 PM (u29Gj) <<<<<<

 

 

 

 

When that piece of shit passed, I got so damn drunk I fell and slammed my shoulder into a wall, tearing my rotator cuff. Hurt so bad I couldn't sleep for 6 months. Still not completely healed. I have no words to convey how badly I hate this bill or the fucking socialists who shoved it down our throats.

194

#177 I don't buy that argument. At. All.  I believe the insuarnce companies made it up. 

 

You have to believe there are MILLIONS of people with really, really expensive preexisting conditions that will be changing jobs and changing policies.  AND you have to believe that all those people who don't have insurance now will be buying their policies from the same insurance companies that are covering all those preexisting conditions.  It's all bullshit propaganda designed to make people feel sorry for the insurance companies.

 

NEVER, EVER FORGET that Big Insurance wrote most of this bill.  Do you trust them to tell the truth?  Sure, they want 30 million new customers forced through their doors by the government.  But does that automatically mean they NEED them?  Think about it.  The fact is they are going to make out like fucking bandits if this bill stands as written.

195 DC will explode with bought and paid-for Leftist rioters. They will burn all nine justices in effigy and poop on the SC steps.

Oh man, if that would really happen.....it's on!!!

196 i just hope those healthcare.gov commercials leave- or at least have Obama say he approved this ad.

197 Congress can fix that by enacting a stiff tax penalty for people who wait until they have a diagnosis to buy insurance.

What?  How is that not a mandate?  Oh, sure, it won't be called that, but "buy insurance or pay a tax" is a mandate.  And it doesn't help the insurance companies a bit.

Unless the tax is so high that it would never pass anyway, most people will still (quite rightly) do the math and realize that paying premiums every month while they're healthy doesn't make as much sense as waiting until they actually need the coverage.

And, even then, "the poor" (that is: the people most likely to be using this nice little tactic) will be somehow exempted from the "tax."

No, human nature and economics say it just doesn't work.

198 As screechy and bad as the lead singer from hair band Cinderella was, his song was still better than Joplin.

199 No matter how the Court rules, it will be a major victory or benefit for Obama.

200 Posted by: Thunderb at June 25, 2012 01:04 PM (Dnbau)

Overreaching generalizations ya got there.  You are normally a pretty astute commenter, but any credibility you might have is destroyed by failing to note the ideology involved that created the amoral/immoral mess you rightfully rue.



Only a portion of the boomers are responsible for this disastrous culture. The other half (or more) of us have been fighting tooth and nail to return this country to sanity.
Tea Party?  There are some boomers- but you erroneously paint them  as cretins with your over-generalizations.   Stop it.
Ageism is just a ugly as classism, racism, and every other "ism".  Leads to objectifying the "other" and that reeks of a not-so-pretty solution.

201 Congress can fix the mandate to make it all work if they want to, they just can't do it under the Commerce Clause.

Posted by: rockmom at June 25, 2012 01:15 PM (qE3AR)

They didn't do that before, when they had a super-majority congress and the WH because a massive tax hike is political suicide. With GOP control of any part of the show, this becomes more likely? I appreciate the possibilities on paper, but this won't happen in a million years.

202

AllenG, my sister has worked for Wellpoint for 17 years, and my dad was a physician.  I know all about Big Insurance.  I also know an insurance company lobbyist who told me a year ago that his company isn't worried about the economics if the mandate falls. 

 

Wellpoint is a goddam money machine.  There's no way it's going to go broke and lead to a single payer system.  They could cover almost all 30 million uninsured people for free right now and still make money. 

203

#195

Insurance companies did have a hand in writing the bill, but so did many other leftist organizations such as jerkwads in MoveOn.org as well as Van Jones' associations (can't remember the names).

 

Every time I hear this bullshit about pre-exisiting conditions, I want to rip some liberals eyes out.  My son has what they call a pre-existing condition. Hell, he was born with it!  And all I hear from these different companies is how they can't cover it because it's not "medically necessary". WTF?!? Speaking correctly and understanding language isn't medically necessary?!?!

 

They are complete douchebags.

204 >>>No matter how the Court rules, it will be a major victory or benefit for Obama.
Posted by: MSM at June 25, 2012 01:25 PM (vXucy)

Ain't that the truth. It could be a 9-0 opinion rendered by Scalia that incorporates him pissing on a copy of the bill with concurring pissings from Roberts and Thomas and they would tell us how it is a WIN for Obama.

205 I don't buy that argument. At. All. I believe the insuarnce companies made it up.

I'm sorry that you don't believe in reality.

There are only a few insurance companies (that offer private coverage) that exist.  The BlueCross BlueShield Association, United, CIGNA, and Aetna about cover it (there are some more minor players, too, but not very many).  Further, health insurance cannot be bought or sold across state lines- so I'm limited to the insurance companies in my state.

That makes the chances pretty likely that when I drop my insurance at one of those companies, I'll be picking it up at another one of those companies.  And there are millions of people changing their insurance companies every month, if not every day.

The insurance companies didn't "make up" the argument: they illuminated it.  That's just the way the insurance industry works. 

The fact is they are going to make out like fucking bandits if this bill stands as written.

No, they're not.  In the State of Texas (where we've done a lot to bring health care costs- and therefore health insurance costs- under control) it is cheaper for the Insurance Companies to pay the State of Texas (on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars) to cover High Risk participants than to offer that coverage themselves.

I worked for the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool, I saw it first hand.  We paid out unbelievable sums of money every. single. day.  We had a significant number of people who would max out their (up to $10,000) deductible and their (up to a further $7,500) out-of-pocket maximum on January 1st. Every. Single. Year.

206

I suspect this will go 5 / 4 in striking the entirety of Obamacare.  During oral arguments, Justice Kennedy pointed out that maintaining the entire scope of Obamacare while striking only part of it would place more authority on the court --- essentially, Kennedy turned the liberal "activist" argument against the liberals by pointing out that congress did not intend for the law to be parsed and that doing so without the existence of a severability clause would be exceeding the Court's own charge.

The lack of a standard severability clause will give ample judicial credence to strike the balance of Obamacare.

207

#202 I didn't say it will happen, I just think that's the logical place for the Court to end up with the least amount of controversy while still acting to place a limit on the Commerce Clause.  It isn't the Court's job to figure out what is politically possible in an election year or under either party control. 

 

If I'm right, hide and watch what Congress does.  I don't think they will be in any hurry to repeal the guaranteed-issue provision.  Not just because it's popular, but because it isn't actually going to be that costly for the insurance companies.

 

208 I was talking this over with another moron this weekend. We think it's going to be 7-2 with the mandate junked, and the rest of the law upheld and thrown back to congress.

I think there was a "grand bargain" of sorts to leave the rest of the law, but tossing the mandate. Probably Kagan and Ginsberg are going to be the dissenting votes.

Thursday can't get here fast enough.

209 I predict a 5-4 split in striking all of it.  Not coincidentally, I also predict a 5-4 split in justices the MFM will promptly label as senile.

210

Posted by: rockmom at June 25, 2012 01:22 PM (qE3AR)

Oh drop the conspriacy shit.

Listen, we had a preview of this, it was called EMTALA, it closed hospitals in cities pure and simple. Google it.

And that was a relatively small bill (only applying to emergancy treatment, and only requiring stablization.)

Now multiply that times every freaking person in the country. Even if only 1/2 of 1% of americans fit your description that's still 1.5 million people (someone want to check my math on that? I did it in my head.)

And if it drives up employer premiums enough you might start to see employers dropping coverage. (Although I do think that is at least somewhat unlikely.) But it would make the problem worse.

Here's the deal, you can't have it both ways. Either medical debt is crushing people because they aren't signing up for insurance (or getting denied when they try to after finding out about an illness) or free riders aren't going to be a problem. Choose 1, not both.

FWIW, I surmised the problem of freerider ship prior to reading a damned thing from the insurance companies.  I arrived at it exactly like I said "Crap, EMTALA is forcing hosptitals to close, if GI becomes reality, they'll be signing people up in the lobby to protect themselves at the expense of insurance companies."

211 Wellpoint is a goddam money machine.

Wellpoint is not an insurance company (it owns a few).  Wellpoint predominately provides prescription payment services (BCBSTX contracted with them for exactly that while I was there- not sure if they still do) and that's a different racket market.

So, no, Wellpoint has nothing to fear.  BlueCross BlueShield?  Different story.  CIGNA?  Aetna? Different story.

Now, the purely "for profit" (by designation: they're all "for profit" in fact) insurance companies can survive a little bit longer than the "not-for profit" (by designation) companies, because they have a little more legal wiggle-room.  Make no mistake, though, Obamacare from its inception was a Trojan Horse for Single Payer.  Removing the Mandate simply makes it come faster.

212 You can't quit me, you know you can't.

youtube.com/watch?v=f20Oz9Yr_So

213 The lack of a standard severability clause will give ample judicial credence to strike the balance of Obamacare.

Posted by: Journolist at June 25, 2012 01:34 PM (QWOh7)

--

I agree with this.  Roberts made severability its own subject with this in mind.  Logically, if the mandate goes, and then severability goes, how can the rest of the law stand, unless the court begins to legislate?

214 208

It isn't the Court's job to figure out what is politically possible in an election year or under either party control.



Which is exactly why I believe the jurisprudence will be to strike the entire statute. Doing a partial on a statute that pervasive, while flouting non-severability is an act of legislation from the bench. I don't believe even Kennedy would go that far in a ruling that includes striking the mandate.

215 AllenG, I see what you are saying, but I don't trust Big Insurance any more than I trust JPMorganChase and Citigroup.  All these big companies have bought off everyone in Washington to get what they want and give up as little as possible.  They rigged this legislation to enable themselves to make gigantic profits.  Congress and Obama were only too happy to go along in order to have their Historic Achievement of Universal Health Care, especially since they didn't have to go back to the voters with a gigantic tax increase to pay for it.  I just do not trust them.  They went along with this waaaay too easily. 

216 I miss MRSA but like an abusive spouse it has a habit of returning unexpectedly.

217 RE: What rockmom is saying, let me just add this.

I know and used to work with some of the biggest names in healthcare law, guys who are the rainmakers bringing work to BigLaw firms from the Biggest of the Big Insurers.

Not a single one of them thinks that the elimination of the mandate but the retention of the preexisting conditions clause would significantly hurt the viability of big insurance companies.  The insurance companies WANT the mandate, because hey: free money.  But the preexisting conditions clause?  Ain't gonna lead to single-payer. 

A lot of people here (everywhere, really) have absolutely no understanding of the realities of healthcare economics.  It's not as simple or 'intuitive' as the idea of "free riders" + Public Choice theory + preexisting conditions coverage = inevitable insolvency + single-payer.  In fact it doesn't work like that at all.

218 And if it drives up employer premiums enough you might start to see employers dropping coverage.

That one, at least, is not as bad as advertised.  Most employers of any size now have Fully Funded insurance plans, which means their premiums should be somewhat insulated from other cost increases that Insurance Companies will face.

It will affect the Fully Insured plans, but those are essentially private policies that are just bought in bulk anyway.

219

If Ocare is struck down,  one of the first things the next congress should do is take away the illegality of selling insurance across state lines.  Also should set up laws to ensure that people can choose to get ONLY catastrophic insurance, since that seems to be the only real reason for insurance.  The "preventive healthcare" should  be totally optional.

 

Healthcare insurance as we have it now is nothing but nannystatism.

220 It's been over for awhile. Like, since before I was born.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 01:17 PM (/kI1Q)

 

Yep. That we didn't have an armed revolution over forced busing when the courts let you know they owned your kids, not you, was a big sign.

221 There is also this from the brief quoting the text ACA: ACA § 1501(a)(2)(H) (“The requirement is an essential part of this larger regulation of economic activity, and the absence of the requirement would undercut Federal regulation of the health insurance market.”); § 1501(a)(2)(I) (“The requirement is essential to creating effective health insurance markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed issue and do not exclude coverage of preexisting conditions can be sold.”); § 1501(a)(2)(J) (“The requirement is essential to creating effective health insurance markets that do not require underwriting and eliminate its associated administrative costs.” ******** Although I do have to hand it to them--IIRC there was debate during oral over the meaning of-- "essential."

222 Piker.

223 >>>Oh drop the conspriacy shit.

What are you talking about?  It's not a "conspiracy."  It's the worst-kept secret in Washington that the big support for Obamacare -- the support that allowed it to squeeze through the House and get 60 votes in the Senate -- came from the insurance companies, whose lobbyists were, indeed, DEEPLY involved with House and Senate committees in drafting language for the bill.

Dude, do you not realize that this is how sausage gets made around here?

224 >>And, even then, "the poor" (that is: the people most likely to be using this nice little tactic) will be somehow exempted from the "tax."

It'll be deducted from their EITC...which will be increased to cover it.

225 @215 Kennedy has already ruled that a law can be severed without express permission from Congress.  Yes, that is judicial activism of the worst sort, but that door is already open so the Court can use its own precedent here.  I don't see any way Kennedy votes to strike the whole law.  So it could be a 5-4 decision to uphold all of it, which wouldn't surprise me either.  But I really think Roberts wants to slap Congress a little bit -- just not too much.   

226 They rigged this legislation to enable themselves tomake gigantic profits. Congress and Obama were only too happy to go along in order to have their Historic Achievement of Universal Health Care

That's the thing: you've got it exactly backwards.

The Insurance Companies (especially Big Pharma, which includes Prescription Drug Insurance) were, indeed, more than happy to "help" write Obamacare- they knew what was coming, and (quite rationally) decided to make it as good for themselves as possible.

But even with all of that- and, I assure you, it was Insurance Companies that insisted on both the mandate and the death panels- all they did was prolong the inevitable.  Probably for just long enough for the current crop of execs to get their money safely hidden/expatriated and then go into retirement.

I'm not saying they're good actors in this: I'm just saying they're also not exaggerating when they say how bad it will be.

227 “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law,” Obama said in a statement released by the White House. “At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally.” Although the Supreme Court, in a ruling handed down Monday morning, tossed out three of four contested provisions on Arizona’s controversial immigration law, the remaining portion of the law allows law enforcement officials in the state to request a person to document their citizenship if they suspect an individual might be in the country illegally when stopped on suspicion of committing a separate offense. Critics have said the provision allows for racial discrimination. “I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like,” he said. “We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.”

228 Roberts siding with the libs on Arizona says to me he's hedging his bets and Obamacare (all of it) is gone.

This way, he's not seen as "political, etc"

229 Prediction: 9-0 that Pelosi is a complete dumbass

230

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 25, 2012 01:39 PM (flD95)

Well that's an admitted oversimplificaiton.

I'd say it's more like: "free riders" + Public Choice theory + preexisting conditions coverage=Rising private insurance costs+Public sector (read: Debt) option resulting in single payer.

The government doesn't have to spend smartly (see: Medicare) so if there becomes an insurance "crisis" (not necessiarly insolvancy, but rising prices) then government can ride to rescue with "more affordable plans."

Of course this isn't a factor of GI either, the EHB plays a part in this.  As well as the limiting of "high deductable plans."  There's pretty solid economic data showing that people with very nice insurance (read: No deductable) tend to spend more on healthcare overall (because they consent to more borderline-useless tests.)

I also suspect we'll see more Joint Ventures between doctors and imaging/testing centers in an attempt to help their bottom line.

I know some of the better Academic Health Lawyers, and to be quite frank, I'm getting mixed signals from them on this.  On the one hand it's all doom and gloom, on the other it's not going to help much. I think it's because they tend to have a more narrow understanding of the greater economic picture at play.

231 You're going to miss your 3000% decrease in health insurance premiums.

232 I despise all this shit about "boomers".  baby Boomers get thedamned blame for a LOT of shit that the so-called "greatest generation" did like that comment about "suburbia".


Suburbia started coming about long before baby boomers.  It actually started after WWII in the 40s.


Protestors and hippies at Height-Ashburry??? Hell, most of them were the standard good for nothing bums and panhandlers. The actual was protesters were less than 0.1% of the population of youths in the 60s and 70s.  Where  do people think those 500K of soldiers that went to 'Nam came from?


And all the damn great society laws and liberalism?  Voted in by the "greatest generation" LBJ congress.

233 226

Kennedy from Oral Arguments:

"When you say judicial restraint, you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the Act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite. We would be exercising the judicial power if one Act was — one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this Court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me, can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike -than striking the whole."

Oral Arguments aren't a perfect augur, but that's a reasonable indicator that he doesn't buy the government's argument re: severability in this case.

234 Obama's schedule today. 10:30 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing 11:00 am || Meets with Secretary of State Clinton 12:05 pm || Departs the White House 1:35 pm || Arrives Portsmouth, New Hampshire 2:05 pm || Delivers remarks at a campaign event; Oyster River High School, Durham, New Hampshire 4:05 pm || Departs Portsmouth 4:30 pm || Arrives Boston 5:10 pm || Attends a fundraiser; HamersleyÂ’s Bistro 7:35 pm || Attends a fundraiser; Symphony Hall 9:25 pm || Attends a fundraiser; private residence

235 Does anyone expect throngs of underemployed lefties to assemble at the Supreme Court to celebrate/riot when the Court's decision is announced?

236 My prediction ... pain!

237 233 Yeah,the war turned them hard left,if they weren't already.

238

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 25, 2012 01:42 PM (flD95)

I won't deny the sausage making of the bill, I was more flummoxed by the insinuation that I can't assess the evidence and arrive at my own conclusion (which I admit I'm eliminating some of the nuance from in my posts here) without influence from "big insurance."  I'm not necessiarily swayed by them on this, in fact I found their evidence lacking.

We can all throw around our credentials around here (although like Wikipedia we can't verify shit.) but I'm not sure any of that matters as well.

There is really one basic question: is the information presented facutally accurate, and does it support the argument. I presented information and was shot back with what could be summerized as: Stop being a stooge for the insurance industry.  Except that's fairly inaccurate from my perspecitve.

239 See this-- from oral argument on sever ability-- *********** (Farr arguing for the Democrats) The reason is because the word "essential" in the Commerce Clause context doesn't have the colloquial meaning. In the Commerce Clause context "essential" effectively means useful. So that when one says in Lopez, when the Court says section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme of economic activity, it goes on to say, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut if we didn't have this provision. Well, if that's all Congress means, I agree with that. The system will be undercut somewhat if you don't have the minimum coverage provision. It's like the word "necessary" in the Necessary and Proper Clause clause. It doesn't mean, as the Court has said on numerous occasions, absolutely necessary. It means conducive to, useful, advancing the objectives, advancing the aims. And it's easy to see, I think, that that's what Congress - JUSTICE SCALIA: Is there any dictionary that gives that - MR. FARR: I'm sorry, Justice Scalia? JUSTICE SCALIA: — that definition of "essential"? It's very imaginative. Just give me one dictionary. MR. FARR: Well, but I think my point, Justice Scalia, is that they are not using it in the true dictionary sense. JUSTICE SCALIA: How do we know that? When people speak, I assume they are speaking English. MR. FARR: Well, I think that there are several reasons that I would suggest that we would know that from. The first is, as I say, the findings themselves. Congress says at the very beginning, the head of it, is Congress makes the following findings, and they are talking about the interstate — you know, B is headed "Effects on the national economy and interstate commerce." So we know the context that Congress is talking about. It is more or less quoting from the Court's Commerce Clause statements. But if one looks at the very preceding finding, which is finding H, which is on 42 over onto 43, Congress at that point also uses the word "essential." In the second sentence it says "this requirement" — and again we're talking about the minimum coverage provision — is an essential part of this larger regulation of economic activity, which is, by the way, an exact quote from Lopez, in which "the absence of the requirement undercuts Federal regulation," also an exact quote from Lopez. But what it is referring to is an essential — an essential part of ERISA, the National Health Service Act and the Affordable Care Act. It can't possibly be, even the plaintiffs haven't argued, that those Acts would all fall in their entirety if you took out the minimum coverage provision. And as a second example of the same usage by Congress, the statute that was before the Court in Raich, section 801 of Title 21, the Court said that the regulation of intrastate drug activity, drug traffic, was essential to the regulation of interstate drug activity. Again, it is simply not conceivable that Congress was saying one is so indispensable to the other, the way the United States uses the term here, so indispensable that if we can't regulate the intrastate traffic we don't want to regulate the interstate traffic, either. The whole law criminalizing drug traffic would fall. So I think once you look at the finding for what I believe it says, which is we believe this is a useful part of our regulatory scheme, which the Congress would think in its own approach would be sufficient -­ ******** See--it all could turn on what your meaning of essential- is. And then of course--it all depends on what the meaning of is--is.

240 See...the Democrats meant "essential" till they didn't mean "essential"--it's fluid.

241 241 it's a living, breathing word ...

242 If they get rid of the mandate, so the "supremes" are then going rewrite and pick and chose and basically legislate what they want this new law to be like??

243 So they're going to read a law that congress itself never bothered to read??

244 234 226 Kennedy from Oral Arguments: "When you say judicial restraint, you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the Act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite. We would be exercising the judicial power if one Act was — one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this Court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me, can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike -than striking the whole." Oral Arguments aren't a perfect augur, but that's a reasonable indicator that he doesn't buy the government's argument re: severability in this case. Posted by: IdowhatIwant at June 25, 2012 01:50 PM (+Uv5V) ********\ Good find.

245  If they get rid of the mandate, so the "supremes" arethen going rewrite and pick and chose and basically legislatewhat they want this new law to be like??

Posted by: johnc_ex-democrat at June 25, 2012 01:57 PM (ACkhT)

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

They've done it before.  I don't know about the pick and choose aspect, but they have legislated from the bench.  Roe v. Wade, anyone?  (And that's just for starters.)

246 242 241 it's a living, breathing word ... Posted by: Mr T Honey Badger, drinker of Mead, eater of pistachios at June 25, 2012 01:57 PM (GvYeG) ******* LOL--It's an evolving "masterpiece" with layers, layers--of innuendo.

247 Gawd...Scalia has to listen to that..."art in motion".

248 Only Joni Mitchell song I ever liked was her cover of "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime."

249 JUSTICE KENNEDY: So do you want us to write an opinion saying we have concluded that there is an insignificant risk of a substantial adverse effect on the insurance companies, that's our economic conclusion, and therefore not severable? That's what you want me to say? MR. FARR: It doesn't sound right the way you say it, Justice Kennedy. (Laughter.)

250 >>And all the damn great society laws and liberalism? Voted in by the "greatest generation" LBJ congress.

Don't forget FDR and Wilson.

OTOH, what did baby boomers do to reverse the descent into fascism and cradle-to-grave welfare?  They didn't mind giving up a few percent of their wages, because they expected to get 30 years of monthly checks and subsidized health care in exchange for it.

251
"If the Supremes open this door nothing will stop the federal government from mandating anything they possibly can."

These are the people, remember, who voted against Kelo, and who found McCain-Feingold constitutional.

I wouldn't put *anything* past them.

My guess: the whole 2,000-page clusterfuck (to use Jon Stewart's description) is OK'd, 6-3.

252 >>Only Joni Mitchell song I ever liked was her cover of "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime."

I like her paintings. 

No, wait, that's Joan Mitchell.  Who studied at the Art Institute of Chicago.

Also Joan Miro, who is a dude.

253

Posted by: Soona at June 25, 2012 02:00 PM (AdWAw)

yes, but to legislate and rewrite the law, they would have to first read that 2000+ page piece of original crap-law.

254 Just one more: MR. FARR: Well, Justice Breyer, I think what I would say is if one goes back to the, what I think is the proper severability standard and say, would Congress rather have not — no bill as opposed to the bill with whatever is severed from it. It seems to me when you are talking about provisions that don't have anything to do with the minimum coverage provision, there is no reason to answer that question as any other way than yes, Congress would have wanted the - JUSTICE KENNEDY: The — the real Congress or a hypothetical Congress? (Laughter.)

255 Prediction: Kennedy isn't going to strike down the mandate and then uphold the rest of the law.

256 250

Farr's presence was odd.

257 256

That's where my money is too.

258 The requirement for immediately covering preexisting conditions means that someone who never carried coverage can wait until they're diagnosed with something major, obtain coverage, and that the insurance company has to pay from day one. Exactly what I will do if the mandate is struck down but the rest of the bill stands. I'll pay my doctor in cash for my regular visits and screenings, which I would probably increase, until I have a heart attack or cancer or something. Then I'll buy insurance until I'm eligible for Medicare.

259

"Joni Mitchell Rule"?  Old Fogey.  I'd call it "The Cinderella Rule":

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhy64aj

260 Politically, we need some token struck down for this autumn.

There needs to be something which can be used in the argument that the president -- who has never held a job in the real world -- but instead spent his life as a constitutional law professor squandered his first term on a law which was ruled unconstitutional. A law which none of us wanted. A law which Nancy Pelosi, when asked if it was constitutional said "are you serious?"
All while people were losing their jobs, their families hurting and our economy languishing.

The politics are severable (heh) from the consitutional validity. I'd love to see Filburn's revenge. As Ben Domenech said, "Our Founding Fathers risked their lives, fortunes, and honor to protect the government's ability to punish farmers for growing wheat."

261 As an aside, if the whole thing is declared unconstitutional, how long would it be before provisions like Flex Spending Accounts not covering OTC drugs get tossed and we go back to business as usual?

262 199 As screechy and bad as the lead singer from hair band Cinderella was, his song was still better than Joplin.

Gimme some of dem Turtle Blues.

263 250 Farr's presence was odd. Posted by: IdowhatIwant at June 25, 2012 02:12 PM (+Uv5V) ******** Somehow I forgot or missed his part till now.

264 Upthread where I said that Farr was arguing for the Democrats is misleading--I missed that he was appointed by the Court. I thought he was only suppose to consider the anti-injunction aspect.

265

5-4 to strike down the entire law. 

Kennedy is disturbingly weak on core law enforcement issues, but regarding  economic issues he's remained strong.  He also has a tendency to side with the  loopy left on up to two but not more than two rulings each term.  With today's  decisions on the Arizona law and on the mandatory LWOP for juveniles case  he's reached his quota.   

266 Robert Long was appointed to argue the tax anti-injunction question.

267

Here's one prediction I think is untrue: E.J. Dionne says you'll miss ObamaCare when it's gone.

How does this person know we'll miss it?  It's not even in full effect.  Right now we're just taxing to prepare the way for it.  5 years on, 5 years off every fucking decade.  "I need a kidney replacement." "The waiting list is 5 years long because we need the taxes to get the program going again."

Does this EJ Dionne even take advantage of Obamacare?  I think not.

268 I can't think of any way to rationalize total repeal of the ACA with today's SCOTUS decisions. If the logic of the 3 big decisions today is applied to the ACA it would seem the act would stand with the penalties struck. The resulting monumental mess would be left to Congress to resolve. Pretty much what Justice Ginsburg seemed to be hinting at last week...

269 stupid EJ no one likes the bill.

270

Mandate unconstitutional (7-2): Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Sotomayer, Kennedy, Ginsburg......Kagan and Breyer say otherwise.

Severable(7-2):  Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Roberts, Sotomayer, Alito...........Thomas and Scalia say otherwise.

271 I don't know. I'm wondering about what Scalia's criticism of Obama in his Arizona dissent might mean for the ACA decision.

If ACA were going to be overturned, in whole or in part-- with all the usual suspects in the MSM loudly and hysterically pre-spinning such a decision as the act of a partisan court-- wouldn't Scalia refrain from criticizing Obama (or downplay that criticism) in the Arizona case? Wouldn't he go out of his way to avoid giving the appearance of a partisan conflict between the SC and the POTUS (which is the spin that Obama and his supporters are pushing to account for ACA's potentially being struck down)?

On the other hand, if Scalia qua dissenter is frustrated by the decisions in both cases (i.e. if they're both pro-Obama admin decisions), he might well want to articulate and express his dissent in strong terms.

Sigh, I'm feeling eeyorish, really hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

272 For people saying big pharma is unbreakable and will never be destroyed to make way for socialized medicine, are you kidding me? No business on earth can compete with the United States Government. Profit? Hell they don't even have to worry about going in the red by BILLIONS every year. They'll bleed forever to wipe out competition.