Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Alcibiades

(5,061 posts)
28. Here's an exerpt:
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 02:16 PM
Mar 2012

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don'thave the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car andyou do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticismsof that rule, but that's generally the rule. And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes therelationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

****
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in lifeare matters of degree, in the insurance and health careworld, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- theyoung person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.


****
It's hard to see Kennedy voting to uphold the law, if this is how he feels, let alone Scalia or Roberts.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Actually, ProSense Mar 2012 #1
Thanks, Pro. elleng Mar 2012 #3
That is just wishful thinking and everyone here is clutching to it as fact joeglow3 Mar 2012 #29
It is the studied opinion of 2 experts, elleng Mar 2012 #30
I hope you're right Alcibiades Mar 2012 #4
Try understanding how they approach making decisions, elleng Mar 2012 #2
I understand quite well Alcibiades Mar 2012 #5
I'm an attorney, elleng Mar 2012 #7
Students of judicial politics Alcibiades Mar 2012 #18
Who are the 6 votes to uphold? Owlet Mar 2012 #6
Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy, Scalia. elleng Mar 2012 #8
I think you're right jehop61 Mar 2012 #9
And he upheld an important principle here, elleng Mar 2012 #10
I'm certainy no constitutional scholar Owlet Mar 2012 #11
Underlying assumption doesn't work, elleng Mar 2012 #12
Wouldn't Roberts be likely to side with the majority to protect "his"court from claims of excessive Rowdyboy Mar 2012 #13
Possible; was listing mandatory and likely minimum. elleng Mar 2012 #14
So, after hearing the oral arguments Alcibiades Mar 2012 #22
'AFTER hearing the oral arguments?' elleng Mar 2012 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author Alcibiades Mar 2012 #24
The oral arguments on the individual mandate Alcibiades Mar 2012 #25
Yes, and it takes a while to listen to them, doesn't it? elleng Mar 2012 #26
Here's an exerpt: Alcibiades Mar 2012 #28
It was written by the insurance companies and intended to fail. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #15
The mandate was a planned bonanza for the one percent, woo me with science Mar 2012 #16
Why would they strike it down when it saved Big Insurance who were about to go bankrupt? sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #17
Because Rmoney says it's unconstitutional Alcibiades Mar 2012 #19
I disagree. It's laughable for Romney to trash a bill that is so similar to the one he sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #20
What they want is for the Republicans to win Alcibiades Mar 2012 #21
Medicare For All kenny blankenship Mar 2012 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court poised to s...»Reply #28