Please don’t say that another poster “look[s] pathetic.” Even if you are saying they only look pathetic if they’re making a particular argument, it remains a personal comment.
I applaud your newfound, objective, nonpartisan and wholly logical opinion that only those who have argued cases before the supreme court have meaningful opinions, and your applying that metric to the current supreme court. :rolleyes:
I hope so. I could use the points. 
The questions seemed pretty real from Kennedy; the whole thing about what an “enormous burden” the government had, or whatever he said.
Scalia is obviously having none of this. Do you think that my 7-2 will hold up?
Maybe. The only difficulty is that Alito and Thomas are givens, and there are three votes who might go against you. I would have gone 6-3 on the basis that Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy each have a 1/3 shot of voting nay.
I don’t know what the new consensus is on the SCOTUS ruling since the oral arguments took place this week, but I think I just came up with the perfect compromise to the individual mandate.
So, the argument AGAINST it has typically been that there’s not an “out” right? I mean, people always bring up the mandatory car insurance argument, and the rebuttal there is usually that “well, you don’t have to drive;” so there’s the “out” in that case, this idea that people can evade having to purchase car insurance as long as they choose not to drive (I call it a BS rebuttal to begin with, but I’m just making my point). That’s been the case against the individual mandate; you gotta do it no matter what in order to facilitate the rest of the ACA provisions.
So how about this?
What about instead of forcing people to buy health insurance, we simply give them the “out” of not using medical services. It would work like this: Nobody would be forced to get health insurance UNTIL they wind up in the hospital or the doctor’s office or wherever; upon that initial arrival and tendering of medical services, they would be required to sign up for health insurance and, from that point on, maintain some form of medical coverage for the rest of their lives (be it via private insurance or Medicare/Medicaid/whatever). The rest of the ACA would still apply (ie the tax credits for low income people to get insurance, the requirements for employers to offer insurance, the ban on onerous insurance industry practices, etc.), and there would probably have to be some additional exemptions figured in; I mean, things like mandatory inoculations for kids entering school wouldn’t constitute the lifetime health insurance commitment, but you get the general idea.
But at least that way there’s the “out” for everybody; they don’t have to have to get health insurance until they use medical services, and eventually, you’re bound to get near-universal coverage as more and more people wind up in the hospital down the line. I don’t know how feasible that solution would be, but at the very least it would probably make the entire package more equitable to the car insurance argument.
What do you guys think? What’s the current consensus on the SCOTUS ruling now anyway?
Based on the arguments for the mandate did not do well at all and will most likely be overturned.
But this is SCOTUS so we will see in a few months.
I like. The requirement to maintain coverage for life breaks the analogy with car insurance though. (Also note, car insurance, as was stated abovethread, is required by state laws. No one argues that states can’t institute a health insurance mandate.)
I get the sense that folks in some corners are shocked that the Supreme Court isn’t going along with the Obama administration’s winking, “C’mon guys, we all know this must be constitutional, right? ;)” and instead seriously considering whether the law, laudable as its ultimate goal may be, may or may not violate provisions of the Constitution. Even the solicitor general seemed taken aback that the justices weren’t playing along – what else could account for his apparent lack of preparation?
Courts are not in the habit of assuming everything is unconstitutional, Koxinga.
But if the SC accepts a case for review, then ipso facto constitutionality is open to question. Presuming the SC would rubber stamp this or any other issue doesn’t seem all that wise.
I’m surprised that this hasn’t gotten more play. I’m a law student and a required course to graduate is Appellate Advocacy. In part of that course, the student is put on video tape and critiqued about his/her oral argument skills. It’s hammered home to never say “um” and to always know your cases.
This guy is Solicitor General of the United States and he shows up to the Supreme Court for the most important case in our lifetimes and he is unprepared and mealymouthed? That’s bullshit. I’m not exaggerating: at least half of my classmates could have done as good or better than the Solicitor fucking General of the United States. He should lose his job over this.
I have a simple question: Justice Scalia complained that reading the 2700 page bill is too difficult.
Is it constyitutional to cast your vote on a bill that you haven’t read and don’t understand?
Your “and” is crucial. Not all bills, I would say, require a complete reading to understand the Constitutional issues surrounding them. But I do think that they’re should be a requirement for Congresscritters to read and understand the bill before voting for it. They’re the ones who need to make sure all the is are dotted and ts are crossed and the whole thing makes sense.
So, how do you feel about Nancy Pelosi’s claim that “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”? And about the congresspeople who admitted to not reading it?
It is not unconstitutional to pass bad laws.
Doesn’t solve the problem. It still permits people to not pay for insurance until they need it, since they can’t be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. There’s the rub. For the pre-existing condition “non-exclusion” to work, you need everybody paying in, including the young, healthy people who would otherwise be inclined to pass on it. They subsidize the sickies.
IOW, waiting until you have cancer to get coverage, so long as you have to continue to maintain your coverage does NOT solve the problem.
Courts operate under the assumption that Congress is not overstepping its authority. The question often answered is not “is X unconstitutional” but “is there a way to understand X in accordance with the constitution.” It is not a rubber stamp, but it isn’t the implication you described.
Justice Breyer said the same thing. Are you as upset at him?
But it is bad to pass unconstitutional laws. Especially when you didn’t read them.
Yes but the body who responsible to correct that is the electorate and not the judiciary.
It’s got fewer words than Palin’s “autobiography”. But *she *probably hasn’t read it, either.
Of course. Irresponsible, sure, but wholly constitutional. Why is that a question for you?