Anyone still think the SCOTUS will uphold the PPACA?

[Alcibiades]

I posted a thread a couple of days ago, wherein folks argued that the very smart folks in the Obama administration said this was constitutional, and that it would therefore be upheld. Of course, these same very smart folks failed to ensure that the final version of the bill would include a severability clause, so that's really not a particularly strong argument.

Some other folks claimed that the court would uphold the PPACA, even going so far as to predict that Kennedy would support it, perhaps even along with Roberts and Scalia (!).

From the transcript, the solicitor general seems to have offered a pretty stammering defence of the PPACA. He seemed to want to come back to the phrase "It's a market," and was caught utterly flatfooted by what seem to be witless analogies offered up by the five who are poised to strike down the PPACA.

Politico includes a link to the transcript:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74525.html

Again, most of the legal analysis has referenced prior decisions and opinions by specific justices, as though they were in some way beholden to ideas. They are not. These are members of the GOP, in lockstep with their national party, who want nothing more than to declare the PPACA unconstitutional and hand the president a loss and hand Mitt Romney an issue--after all, Romneycare would be constitutional, but not the PPACA, which would kill an issue that has haunted him.

Legal arguments, stare decisis, and, the constitution itself simply do not matter to the SCOTUS when it comes to handing a political loss to Barack Obama. Some people, apparently including the Solicitor General, believe the Court has a "solemn obligation to respect the judgments of the democratically accountablebranches of government."

That is a quaint notion. If you held it before, Bush v. Gore ought to have disabused you of it. If not, at least take this opportunity to learn something. The court does not care about its standing as an institution, or at least the GOP justices don't. Maybe they might care about the law in a fairly obscure criminal case that has somehow made its way onto their plate, but in a political question you can expect they will rule politically, and tack on legal decisions as a post hoc formality.

[Alcibiades]

1. It's a foregone conclusion

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/03/cnns-toobin-ruins-scotus-for-potus-118843.html

There's nothing that Solicitor General Vermicelli could say on the subject that would sway the five who had their minds up when they walked in yesterday morning, though.

[SoCalDem]

2. Bush v Gore Redux

[Alcibiades]

3. Exactly.

There's no doubt that the SCOTUS does care, on some level, about such things as its institutional legitimacy and public opinion. But Bush v. Gore showed that, when the stakes are high enough, they are willing to throw everything out the window in favor of whatever they favor politically.

In this case, it helps with the GOP narrative that Obama is a Caesaristic overreacher by labelling the PPACA as unconstitutional. It also has the side effect of pandering to the various pro-GOP lobbies, and demoralizing the Democratic base: after all, there was so much in the first two years of the administration that took a backseat to the PPACA's passage, which now appears to have been for naught.

Fine. Maybe it's time to have Eric Holder actually investigate the Bush administration's crimes. If they want to undermine the poilitical process by legislative fiat, then maybe the administration can grow a pair and investigate actual criminality.

[stevenleser]

4. Which is a big part of the reason I say that Single Payer would have suffered similarly

They dont care about Constitutional justification. This is an ideological fight. They dont like that a Democratic President might get credit for major legislation and they dont like the idea of government mandated health care in ANY form.

[malaise]

5. Repeat of today's arguments here - just started - two hours

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/

[Alcibiades]

6. I doubt I'll watch it

I've read most of it already, and read the rest later.

I would like to see if Solicitor General Vermicelli stammered as badly as it seems in the transcripts, though.

[malaise]

7. It's just audio - very interesting

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

And yes he's stammering though although so far he's getting help from Breyer and Ginsburg.

[malaise]

8. That Florida attorney Paul Clement

is a total asshole.

[fascisthunter]

9. I thought long ago, it would be brought to the Supreme Court and Struck down

...just a time bomb ticking right before an election. Very foolish...and aggravating.