Johnny, Colonel, other SCOTUS watchers...

[CHNOPS]

Predictions?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Predictions?

As a pure legal matter, day 1 showed that the 'penalty' for not having insurance is really a tax. As such, the individual mandate argument of day 2 is moot because nobody has paid the tax yet. You have to first pay the tax, then challenge it.

Politically, they are going to throw out the individual mandate, which because that part is not severable from the whole, the whole thing will be found unconstitutional.

There will be much gnashing of teeth.

 

[CHNOPS]

As a pure legal matter, day 1 showed that the 'penalty' for not having insurance is really a tax. As such, the individual mandate argument of day 2 is moot because nobody has paid the tax yet. You have to first pay the tax, then challenge it.

Politically, they are going to throw out the individual mandate, which because that part is not severable from the whole, the whole thing will be found unconstitutional.

There will be much gnashing of teeth.

Because of the law or because of the lawyer?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Because of the law or because of the lawyer?

4 conservatives, 3 liberals, 2 swing votes. I think Roberts and Kennedy will decline to push the commerce clause as far as the conservatives would do in this case. It's really a seminal case that will limit the scope of the clause.

5-4 unconstitutional. But it could easily go the other way. I see Roberts as the deciderer.

 

[CHNOPS]

4 conservatives, 3 liberals, 2 swing votes. I think Roberts and Kennedy will decline to push the commerce clause as far as the conservatives would do in this case. It's really a seminal case that will limit the scope of the clause.

5-4 unconstitutional. But it could easily go the other way. I see Roberts as the deciderer.

Interesting, since he was supposed to be the stealth far-con who Rain Man'ed his way through his hearings. Wouldn't it be funny if he really did end up being an Aspergerish student of the law who takes it purely on its own merits?

My lefty father-in-law thinks that Roberts is sporting a hard-on a mile wide to be the guy whose court knocks the legislation down.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Interesting, since he was supposed to be the stealth far-con who Rain Man'ed his way through his hearings. Wouldn't it be funny if he really did end up being an Aspergerish student of the law who takes it purely on its own merits?

My lefty father-in-law thinks that Roberts is sporting a hard-on a mile wide to be the guy whose court knocks the legislation down.

Roberts isn't the ideologue the left nor the right think he is. He's very... considered. I think he can see both sides of the issue and will look at it more of an abstract expansion of the commerce clause rather than whether his vote will support one political party or the other.

This is a huge issue aside from the fact that it will have a big impact politically and socially.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

4 conservatives, 3 liberals, 2 swing votes. I think Roberts and Kennedy will decline to push the commerce clause as far as the conservatives would do in this case. It's really a seminal case that will limit the scope of the clause.

5-4 unconstitutional. But it could easily go the other way. I see Roberts as the deciderer.

I'm with Mr. Savage on this one. The smoke signals we got yesterday may or may not be a clear sign of which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Wrong Element]

4 conservatives, 3 liberals, 2 swing votes. I think Roberts and Kennedy will decline to push the commerce clause as far as the conservatives would do in this case. It's really a seminal case that will limit the scope of the clause.

5-4 unconstitutional. But it could easily go the other way. I see Roberts as the deciderer.

Consensus seems to be that if Kennedy chooses to uphold constitutionality, Roberts will join the majority so he can assign the opinion to himself, and write as narrow a ruling as he can. I think a 5-4 pro-administration vote is an unlikely outcome for that reason.

I think fulfilling rightwing fantasies here opens an enormous Pandora's box in several different respects, which is why I still don't believe they're going to go that far. After all, Roberts is certainly not more conservative than Jeffrey Sutton, and Judge Sutton ruled that of course the ACA falls within the purview of the commerce clause.

Also: I don't recall offhand what else is due to be decided by June, but if the Court looks like they're throwing a lot of bones to their wingnut base in their other late rulings, it might be a signal that they're trying to ease the pain of an eventual vote to disappoint them on health care.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It will be interesting to see how they deal with the penalty. It gives them legal cover to punt, but then the court itself would be called political. Quite a pickle this law has created for everyone.

 

[CaudaLinea]

Half a loaf is better than no loaf.

 

[CHNOPS]

Johnny wins closest-to-the-hole.

 

[RobDownSouth]

My lefty father-in-law thinks that Roberts is sporting a hard-on a mile wide to be the guy whose court knocks the legislation down.

Make sure you call your father-in-law today.

 

[JohnnySavage]

4 conservatives, 3 liberals, 2 swing votes. I think Roberts and Kennedy will decline to push the commerce clause as far as the conservatives would do in this case. It's really a seminal case that will limit the scope of the clause.

5-4 unconstitutional. But it could easily go the other way. I see Roberts as the deciderer.

I got the outcome wrong, but the reasoning right with respect to the penalty being considered a tax.

 

[CHNOPS]

Make sure you call your father-in-law today.

At his house right now. "Yeah, maybe on this case, but according to Toobin," etc.

 

[CHNOPS]

I got the outcome wrong, but the reasoning right with respect to the penalty being considered a tax.

Right, and Roberts. You don't drive away in the Buick, but you win the hole.