obamacare looked like a train wreck today [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : obamacare looked like a train wreck today


DOC44
03-27-2012, 21:51
Not a good day for obamacare with the supremes.


http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cnn-today-was-train-wreck-obamacare/449351

Doc44

aircarver
03-27-2012, 21:53
Good !

.

Javelin
03-27-2012, 22:02
The lawyer was not exactly unprepared in my opinion.

The poor guy has to argue an unconstitutional law, demonstrate the legalities of an illegal mandate, and do it all in front of the Supreme Court. One hell of a tap dance if you ask me!

These Supreme Court Justices need to strike this Health Care bill down now and be done with it.


:wavey:

Narkcop
03-28-2012, 03:53
I just hope 5 Supremes have enough courage to do the right thing and strike this down. No telling what will be next if the Kenyan is re-elected as he told the Russian's he will have more flexibility after he is re-elected. In other words he will stop at nothing including the constitution. Better buy your guns now will finally be true.:steamed:

certifiedfunds
03-28-2012, 05:21
The lawyer was not exactly unprepared in my opinion.

The poor guy has to argue an unconstitutional law, demonstrate the legalities of an illegal mandate, and do it all in front of the Supreme Court. One hell of a tap dance if you ask me!

These Supreme Court Justices need to strike this Health Care bill down now and be done with it.


:wavey:

The audio I heard really made him sound incompetent.

Hyksos
03-28-2012, 05:46
In his defense, well, in defense of all attorneys who get up there and sound dumb, it's nerve racking to be up before a panel of state Appeal judges, let alone the SCOTUS. I thought I would be rock solid when we had to argue our briefs in Appellate Advocacy. They brought in three judges from the 3rd DCA. You're trying to focus on one thing and make your arguments flow nicely, but you keep getting interrupted and dragged all over the place. It's tough, and mine didn't even count! Can't imagine what it must be like for them.

I've also seen the 3rd DCA open Court at a law school (for learning purposes) and had real cases argued in front of hundreds of students. The real lawyers slipped up all over the place too.

Goaltender66
03-28-2012, 05:49
He did not do a good job. However, it ultimately doesn't matter, because after today Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer will go to work on Kennedy behind closed doors.

HexHead
03-28-2012, 05:52
He did not do a good job. However, it ultimately doesn't matter, because after today Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer will go to work on Kennedy behind closed doors.

I doubt he respects at least two of them.


Btw, Monday didn't go so well for 0bamacare supporters either.

stevelyn
03-28-2012, 06:09
Lefties can accomplish a lot when they are operating on emotion, but when they have to back it up with facts they usually fail.

callihan_44
03-28-2012, 06:12
I am not getting my hopes up, our freedom hangs in the balance and it should be a no brainer unanimous decision by the court. Unfortunately the lib justices will side with socialism.

certifiedfunds
03-28-2012, 07:12
He did not do a good job. However, it ultimately doesn't matter, because after today Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer will go to work on Kennedy behind closed doors.

You think so?

Everything I've ever read suggests that the justices hardly correspond and don't have influence over one another.

I'm honestly curious...do you think they meet and discuss ala jury or even socially?

Goaltender66
03-28-2012, 07:28
You think so?

Everything I've ever read suggests that the justices hardly correspond and don't have influence over one another.

I'm honestly curious...do you think they meet and discuss ala jury or even socially?

Hell, as far as I know they decide cases based on them playing nude Johnny-On-A-Pony. :)

That lack of transparency is a big reason why investing this much power in nine people is ridiculous.

They would need to get together for conferences and such in order to deliberate, take their votes, and so on. For Heller I do know the opinion had to be crafted for Kennedy to sign off on it, so there had to be some back-and-forth for that to happen pre-delivery. I'm thinking Breyer stops by Kennedy's chamber and says "Hey, Tony! How are Mary and the kids? Say, I was thinking about this ACA thing...what if we look at this as though everyone is taxed but you get a tax credit if you have insurance, like we do with mortgages? Isn't "penalty" a semantics issue....? Anyway, how about going to the Palm tomorrow?"

wjv
03-28-2012, 09:40
He did not do a good job. However, it ultimately doesn't matter, because after today Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer will go to work on Kennedy behind closed doors.

Except that Sotomayor was one of the judges that was ripping the law apart during the arguments.

"Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli's claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. The justice and solicitor general were very much at odds on this point."

ChuteTheMall
03-28-2012, 09:53
However, it ultimately doesn't matter, because after today Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer will go to work on Kennedy behind closed doors.

Pics or it didn't happen.

:ladiesman::pjmn:

:needspics:

:ack::animlol:

CAcop
03-28-2012, 09:55
The "it's not a mandate to buy a product but a tax" argument is what is going to doom this thing.

I would be willing to bet even some of the liberal justices call it unconstitutional. I think they could see a time when their side of the political aisle is forced to buy something they don't want. Say a law that is passed mandating every person over 18 must buy a firearm or pay a fine.

Goaltender66
03-28-2012, 09:58
Except that Sotomayor was one of the judges that was ripping the law apart during the arguments.

"Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli's claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. The justice and solicitor general were very much at odds on this point."

From the orals I got the sense she was acting more as devil's advocate than principled detractor. Although, given the subject matter, it's telling that even arguments probing the counsel's arguments can be characterized as ripping it apart. :)

scattershot
03-28-2012, 19:09
Guess Nancy shoulda read it before she passed it, huh?

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 07:14
Hell, as far as I know they decide cases based on them playing nude Johnny-On-A-Pony. :)

That lack of transparency is a big reason why investing this much power in nine people is ridiculous.

They would need to get together for conferences and such in order to deliberate, take their votes, and so on. For Heller I do know the opinion had to be crafted for Kennedy to sign off on it, so there had to be some back-and-forth for that to happen pre-delivery. I'm thinking Breyer stops by Kennedy's chamber and says "Hey, Tony! How are Mary and the kids? Say, I was thinking about this ACA thing...what if we look at this as though everyone is taxed but you get a tax credit if you have insurance, like we do with mortgages? Isn't "penalty" a semantics issue....? Anyway, how about going to the Palm tomorrow?"

agreed. I'm honestly curious how it works and then how clerks factor in.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 07:15
The "it's not a mandate to buy a product but a tax" argument is what is going to doom this thing.

I would be willing to bet even some of the liberal justices call it unconstitutional. I think they could see a time when their side of the political aisle is forced to buy something they don't want. Say a law that is passed mandating every person over 18 must buy a firearm or pay a fine.

I agree with you.

It appears from early questioning that they all realize this case will fundamentally change the relationship between the government and its citizens.

Geko45
03-29-2012, 07:18
So, the debate now seems to be centered around "whole loaf or half a loaf?" I say that it depends on what kind of "loaf" we are talking about.

:supergrin:

Goaltender66
03-29-2012, 08:04
agreed. I'm honestly curious how it works and then how clerks factor in.

Alito's ex-clerk was on the radio this am and said the Justices actually hold the vote 1-2 days after arguments. The bulk of the time is in writing the opinion. My sense is they sit around a table, argue for a bit, then Kennedy says which way he'll vote and they go home.

The Chief Justice does assign the actual writing of the opinion, and based on who has written previous opinions near the end of the term you can kind of guess who will be writing a given opinion and how it's going to fall. That's how court watchers were sure Heller would be a good decision since Scalia hadn't authored many decisions that term up to the point it was released.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 20:02
My sense is they sit around a table, argue for a bit, then Kennedy says which way he'll vote and they go home.



:rofl:I suspect this is closer to the truth than many of us like.

G29Reload
03-29-2012, 20:15
agreed. I'm honestly curious how it works and then how clerks factor in.

This varies by the justice, but Clerks have a huge impact. They frequently write the opinion and the Justice signs off on it. I'm guessing they're of like mind, or the Justice dictates why he will decide in a certain way and have the clerk do the legwork and write all the dicta that matches his thoughts on the matter.

Unlike most folks knowledge of the word "clerk", this is not a filing cabinet drone or office temp type of clerk. They're usually law students about to graduate or even attorneys who have just passed the bar. Some leave and go on to private practice and some stay with Court for a LONG time. Its really a position of honor.

Commentator Laura Ingraham was a Clerk for Justice Thomas. She went to UVA, I believe and was a law student and later an attorney. (She also was a speechwriter the last year of the Reagan Administration)

It was a clerk (ACLU member I believe) who inserted the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" into the dicta of an opinion for his Justice in the late 40's. (The term does not actually appear in the COTUS)

So, yeah, clerks can be very powerful and influential. And you know when they're working late around the office, they get to talking and influencing each other with opinions and thoughts on their experience and education. The clerks do all the heavy duty tedious research the Justices don't have time for.

Justice Roberts and I'm sure the conservatives will do just as big a number on Kennedy. Thank God Kennedy seems to be going our way because he is key. His nickname is Flipper because he can go either direction as the swing vote.

JFrame
03-30-2012, 06:11
This varies by the justice, but Clerks have a huge impact. They frequently write the opinion and the Justice signs off on it. I'm guessing they're of like mind, or the Justice dictates why he will decide in a certain way and have the clerk do the legwork and write all the dicta that matches his thoughts on the matter.

...



This brings to mind the fact that Obama was never invited to clerk for a federal judge. It was considered pretty much de rigueur that a student coming out of Harvard Law School as president of the Harvard Law Review would clerk for a federal judge.

It wasn't that Obama chose not to clerk -- he was never invited.

Makes one wonder if all those federal judges knew something...


.

Hyksos
03-30-2012, 06:37
This varies by the justice, but Clerks have a huge impact. They frequently write the opinion and the Justice signs off on it.

While this may be true for some of the minor opinions, I don't believe this is true for major cases. After two semesters of Con law and roughly 1400 pages of cases, you can tell who wrote the opinion just by the way it's worded.

For instance, Scalia opinions read like Scalia opinions. You eventually just get a feeling for how he writes and you can see his style come out in his opinions.

On the flip side, Stevens was pretty noticeable too. His opinions usually had a bunch of dicta and some feel-good crap. They also left you wondering "hey, wait, isn't the Court legislating here?"

certifiedfunds
03-30-2012, 06:51
This brings to mind the fact that Obama was never invited to clerk for a federal judge. It was considered pretty much de rigueur that a student coming out of Harvard Law School as president of the Harvard Law Review would clerk for a federal judge.

It wasn't that Obama chose not to clerk -- he was never invited.

Makes one wonder if all those federal judges knew something...


.

Interesting point.

One would think teh editor of the Harvard Law Review would be invited to clerk for a Justice.