After reading the transcripts from yesterday...

[VaticanAssassin]

I hope my government doctor is not half as incompetent as my government lawyer.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

about half way through you can see were the Liberal justices get tired of his incompetence and start making his argument for him...

 

[JoeRockStar]

It's kinda funny to watch albeit sad.

 

[CHNOPS]

Quoting myself, since I ran out of original ideas in the 90s:

Mr. Verrilli seemed taken aback by the hostile reception from the court’s conservatives. He got off to a rocky start and never seemed to quite find his footing during his hour at the Supreme Court lectern.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/u...ervative-justices-over-insurance-mandate.html

If this is true, and the law is overturned, it will be because of hubris not in the passage of the law, but in the defense of it. They clearly felt the Constitution was on their side, but Verrilli should not have walked in expecting it to be.

If that's the case, it's a fight they deserve to lose. This was a valid, intriguing and precedent-setting challenge to one of the largest social initiatives in the country's history. If they didn't recognize and value the process of vetting it, they deserve the KO for it.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Quoting myself, since I ran out of original ideas in the 90s:

Mr. Verrilli seemed taken aback by the hostile reception from the court’s conservatives. He got off to a rocky start and never seemed to quite find his footing during his hour at the Supreme Court lectern.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/u...ervative-justices-over-insurance-mandate.html

If this is true, and the law is overturned, it will be because of hubris not in the passage of the law, but in the defense of it. They clearly felt the Constitution was on their side, but Verrilli should not have walked in expecting it to be.

If that's the case, it's a fight they deserve to lose. This was a valid, intriguing and precedent-setting challenge to one of the largest social initiatives in the country's history. If they didn't recognize and value the process of vetting it, they deserve the KO for it.

I am not reading much in to who is asking what. It is like sitting at a Poker table; people tend to try to reflect the opposite of their position.

My stake in this whole thing is simple. I want it overturned so I can buy insurance for my daughter. Because of this law insurance companies have stopped selling individual policies for children.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Veteran Supreme Court watchers yesterday said the hearings were the first time since the fabled Bush v. Gore that the Supreme Court said "fuck precedents!" and went 100% partisan.

It started when "Justice" Scalia used RNC talking points in open court, and reached a climax when "Justice" Alito whined about insurance being "unfair" to those who don't make claims. Also, Kennedy appeared to be severely constipated yesterday, which usually signals conservative judicial activism.

The Solicitor General had argued 14 cases in front of the Supremes before, but he did an absolutely terrible job yesterday as he seemed profoundly bewildered by the Conservative bloc's willingness to discard "inconvenient" precedent.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Veteran Supreme Court watchers yesterday said the hearings were the first time since the fabled Bush v. Gore that the Supreme Court said "fuck precedents!" and went 100% partisan.

It started when "Justice" Scalia used RNC talking points in open court, and reached a climax when "Justice" Alito whined about insurance being "unfair" to those who don't make claims. Also, Kennedy appeared to be severely constipated yesterday, which usually signals conservative judicial activism.

The Solicitor General had argued 14 cases in front of the Supremes before, but he did an absolutely terrible job yesterday as he seemed profoundly bewildered by the Conservative bloc's willingness to discard "inconvenient" precedent.

Come on man...there are only two judges on the court even capable of not going 100% Parisian.

 

[koalabear]

Court signals entire health care law might need to be struck down

“I think a majority of the court believes that if it rules that individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the health care law probably cannot be saved,” reported NBC’s Pete Williams after hearing the 90 minutes of oral argument.

“It would seem that a majority of the court -- again, breaking down along the familiar lines -- believes ... it would be a very difficult, almost impossible, chore to figure out which parts of the law could still be saved,” Williams reported.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_n...-health-care-law-might-need-to-be-struck-down

 

[mercury14]

For a moment it sounded like Alito was ready to rule against the entire idea of insurance...

 

[RobDownSouth]

For a moment it sounded like Alito was ready to rule against the entire idea of insurance...

There is an excellent short writeup HERE about what we can expect if the Supreme Court starts ignoring precedent on a regular basis.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OwebamaCare is a Volt.

 

[Wrong Element]

Quoting myself, since I ran out of original ideas in the 90s:

Mr. Verrilli seemed taken aback by the hostile reception from the court’s conservatives. He got off to a rocky start and never seemed to quite find his footing during his hour at the Supreme Court lectern.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/u...ervative-justices-over-insurance-mandate.html

If this is true, and the law is overturned, it will be because of hubris not in the passage of the law, but in the defense of it. They clearly felt the Constitution was on their side, but Verrilli should not have walked in expecting it to be.

If that's the case, it's a fight they deserve to lose. This was a valid, intriguing and precedent-setting challenge to one of the largest social initiatives in the country's history. If they didn't recognize and value the process of vetting it, they deserve the KO for it.

Obviously I wasn't there, but it's hard to imagine that an Obama administration lawyer would walk into this Supreme Court expecting a fair shake. What planet has he been living on?

But I don't agree that the challenge is valid or intriguing. It's completely ridiculous, totally outside the boundary of mainstream jurisprudence, and anyone who gives it serious thought is a hack.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RightField]

Veteran Supreme Court watchers yesterday said the hearings were the first time since the fabled Bush v. Gore that the Supreme Court said "fuck precedents!" and went 100% partisan.

It started when "Justice" Scalia used RNC talking points in open court, and reached a climax when "Justice" Alito whined about insurance being "unfair" to those who don't make claims. Also, Kennedy appeared to be severely constipated yesterday, which usually signals conservative judicial activism.

The Solicitor General had argued 14 cases in front of the Supremes before, but he did an absolutely terrible job yesterday as he seemed profoundly bewildered by the Conservative bloc's willingness to discard "inconvenient" precedent.

"Judicial Activism" is where the judges disregard the Constitution or interpret it so loosely that it seems to be disregarded. It's something that liberals who believe in a maleable Constitution.

What this court is doing is keeping close to the Constitution, particulary in ruling that the commerce clause doesn't provide authority for the legislature to force people to enter into contracts with private companies. There is no precedence for forcing citizens to purchase private goods and services.

 

[RightField]

There is an excellent short writeup HERE about what we can expect if the Supreme Court starts ignoring precedent on a regular basis.

This guy you reference is trying to say that "everyone" thought it was based on precedent and consistent with the Constitution? That little detail must have escaped the Attorneys from the 26 states who brought the suit I was under the impression that most sensible thinking people thought that the compulsion by the Government to purchase health insurance under threat of IRS punishment was not consistent with the Constitution or good governance.

 

[CHNOPS]

Obviously I wasn't there, but it's hard to imagine that an Obama administration lawyer would walk into this Supreme Court expecting a fair shake. What planet has he been living on?

But I don't agree that the challenge is valid or intriguing. It's completely ridiculous, totally outside the boundary of mainstream jurisprudence, and anyone who gives it serious thought is a hack.

I am not qualified to gauge that, but if it's true, then even more reason to fault the lawyer his hubris. And if it's not hubris, preparation. And if not preparation...the law itself.