A top legal analyst predicted Tuesday that the Obama administration's healthcare reform legislation seemed likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration."
"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. "I think this law is in grave, grave trouble."
Toobin's observation came on the second day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
Earlier that day, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the deciding vote on whether to uphold the law, told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that there appeared to be a "very heavy burden of justification" on aspects of the law, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Toobin described Kennedy as "enormously skeptical" during the arguments Tuesday.
#3
The law SHOULD be in grave Constitutional trouble, but I have had a lot of concern about the fundamental 'literacy' of the Court for years.
Regardless, I believe the law was never intended to actually work, or even pass court approval - it was made in order to shift the pivot point to where true National Health Care was the probable result of the failure of ACA. It is clear the system we had was doomed; I am sadly confident this is doomed, and even more sure that National Health Care will be worse, but nobody wants to address the core issues. IMO we face rationing - either by price or by edict, unless we increase supply of medical practitioners & services, because demand is only going up. The other component needed is reduction of costs by tort reform and documentation efficiencies; lawyers block the former, and very rational fears of both hacking and abuse hamper the latter.
#4
Something to ponder is whether Champ will abide by the decision if it strikes down the law. Last year he was talking about not being able to wait for Congress because what he wanted to do was just too urgent. You would think he would apply the same "logic" to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Matt ||
03/27/2012 20:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Justice Kennedy's comments and what took place today may explain the lack of the administration "celebration" with regard to the recent two year anniversary.
#6
the fact that it is even questionable as unconstitutional is a joke. All the MFM treat the liberal judges voting for it as "jurisprudence". Conservative or fence-sitters questioning it? Partisanship as journalism
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2012 21:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Since when does the SCOTUS hear two opposite legal arguments for the same law?
Would you not knock that off the table to start with?
Just because Social Security was bamboozled to the court does not mean that the precedent was correct and even in this case, no precedent supports this law. It initially blows a hole through the Constitution by the "Necessary and proper" clause which means nothing here, and the "Interstate Commerce" clause (or non-commerce if it were). Both clauses would be destroyed by the very precedent set by verifying this very law alone.
This means that even if it were allowed to become operative before even a legal claim was filed for it, would that not even violate it's overstep of the Law in the first place? Chicken and egg shit. I do not know.
This is all very dangerous stuff.
Approve this, the republic is over - over night.
= No limits federal mandate.
#8
The tone in various left leaning newspapers today sounded concerned; couldn't even put a racist/ teabag spin on the goings on. but i still don't know, i think Kennedy is the key.
it would be real nice if they would put a youtube of the 2010 State of the Union up where Bambi is dissing the Supremes. just before handing down the decision.....
Re: Matt's commet about abiding by the decision: wouldn't the Court issue an immedieate injuction of an EO were released, ignoring the decision?
#11
D *** NG IT, doesn't the SCOTUS realize its for OWG-NWO + the Regional, TransRegional, + OWG Global Federal Union that no American = Amerikan of the OWG Mighty USSA = OWG Weak USRoA SSR has yet voted for, nor been asked to???
#12
As I have ranted several times on this blog. I have been an RN for 30 years now. And one thing I know, is that for people who have lost their jobs and don't have insurance- rationalized health care is better than no health care at all. Yeah the Brits have seemed to have fucked up their health care system. But our current system is broke and needs to get fixed. However being told that I MUST buy insurance seems unconstitutional.
Pennsylvania State Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, picked up the political hand grenade that is the state's ultrasound bill today when she wondered aloud at a Capitol rally if Republican women who had co-sponsored the bill are "men with breasts."
Josephs' remarks came at a political rally sponsored by the Lancaster County Democratic Committee, in which she accused Republicans in control of the state Senate and state House of turning Pennsylvania into a "laboratory for the right-wing. They're trying all these experiments on us."
Then, she took specific aim at women lawmakers who co-sponsored the ultrasound bill, asking rhetorically, "I do not understand how a woman in this Legislature can say to herself: 'I'm not capable of making my own health decisions... but I can get elected and make them for somebody else.'
"What is wrong with these women? What are they thinking about?" Josephs continued. "Are they women? Or are they men with breasts."
Ironically, the Pennsylvania ultrasound bill has been shelved indefinitely by House leaders, in part because of outcries by more moderate GOP lawmakers who don't want to deal with it in their election year.
Coming two weeks after Gov. Tom Corbett was flogged in the national media echo chamber for his own "you just have to close your eyes" comment about the ultrasound bill, which he said he could support, the bill's supporters seized on Josephs' remarks as insensitive to those who consider abortion murder.
"I think it's sad, and certainly disrespectful, to have to describe opponents to your opinion of a bill by attacking and throwing names around," the bill's prime sponsor, Rep. Kathy Rapp, R-Warren County, said in an interview.
Rep. RoseMarie Swanger, R-North Lebanon Twp. and a co-sponsor, called the comments a low blow. "I am a woman, and just because I disagree with her on certain women's issues doesn't make me a man," Swanger said. "We can have different points of view, but we don't have to insult each other."
Corbett's press secretary Kevin Harley, who has argued that his boss's remarks on the topic were taken out of context by Democratic candidates for office, called Josephs' remarks "intolerant, insulting and idiotic."
In fact, a recent Quinnipiac University poll has suggested that women are evenly divided on the ultrasound requirement.
Josephs stood by her words after the rally, arguing that the women lawmakers on the bill are acting like some women do only in the sense "that they are doing what the men tell them."
Organizers of the rally stood by Josephs' remarks and her right to say them.
"That's her way of questioning the bill, and we support Babette," said Sally Lyall, chair of the Lancaster Democrats. "We don't move ahead if we don't get people's attention. If this gets people thinking, that's the point of a rally like this."
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/27/2012 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hateful Lib Troll
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2012 8:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Increasing clarity in ultrasounds is cutting down on the number of abortions. That is the story between the lines here. Liberal lawmakers need to keep women on the plantation and abortion is all they have so they've jinned up this war on women and rabid attacks on the ultrasound bill.
#5
Creating live births to people who will probably have trouble affording a child (and thus vote to get OPM) will probably assist state authoritarian parties at the expense of redistribution opposing parties.
#6
she accused Republicans in control of the state Senate and state House of turning Pennsylvania into a "laboratory for the right-wing. They're trying all these experiments on us."
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
#7
Clue #1 for the pro-abortion people: for the most part, the ultrasound proposed is routinely done as part of the abortion process, to locate the human life for destruction during the abortion. All the law changes is that the mother be shown the results prior to the destruction of the human life she is carrying.
#10
Old Spook, what you say about trans-vag ultrasound makes sense to me, but how 'standard' is the practice? I'd like to float that argument against my progressive 'friends' but need to be sure I'm on sound footings.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Pennsylvania State Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, picked up the political hand grenade that is the state's ultrasound bill today when she wondered aloud at a Capitol rally if Republican women who had co-sponsored the bill are "men with breasts."
