Starting today, The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act. Rush and Friends naturally are pulling more dog whistles out of their asses over their fear of contrived mandates.
Rush gives his own version of history from last month, but it could also be Orly Taitz' version, or Sarah Palin's..or
Former Reagan Solicitor General, now turned community activist or so we're led to believe since he left the reservation, argues that legal experts agree that the Constitution gives Congress the power to adopt the mandate, and this power does not extend to absurd hypotheticals. FOX actually let this guy speak but since they consider an expert, someone who speaks without moving their lips, they might have been caught off guard
Similar arguments were heard in 1965 over Medicare in which today's Tea Partiers claimed they wanted "gumint outta my health care" but don't cut my Medicare which must come from a parallel government.
Sam Stein reports from the Huffington Post:
"The Republican-leaning American Action Forum and the centrist-Democratic group Blue Dog Research Forum released a poll of former clerks of current justices, as well as attorneys who have argued before the court. In it, they asked for predictions about how the court will rule on the Affordable Care Act."
"Only 35 percent of respondents felt that the individual mandate penalizing those who decline to buy health insurance would be ruled unconstitutional. More than a quarter of respondents (27 percent) expected that the case would be thrown out until the mandate actually comes into effect in 2014, with the justices citing the Anti-Injunction Act as a way to argue that there is no standing for a suit."
"Only 66 people participated in the survey -- 43 former clerks and 23 other attorneys...But the percentages still reflect what has been the conventional wisdom among those in the legal community heading into this week's oral arguments. As it stands now, the bet is that the court will ultimately rule the Affordable Care Act constitutional...."
I do like broccoli, but not government-mandated broccoli.
Posted by: KS | March 26, 2012 at 08:22 PM
The idea of buying individual health insurance as a mandate was the Republican idea in answer to Hillary's mandate that employers had to provide it. As soon as Obama said it was a good idea, the Republicans started opposing it.
Posted by: sparky | March 26, 2012 at 08:40 PM
bingo, this idea was suddenly touted as an Obama idea when in fact, it was conceived by the GOP not long after Kirby Wilbur was yelling at folks in Westlake center.
Posted by: Chris Chronic | March 26, 2012 at 09:00 PM
the only way for Obama Care to be viable -from a fiscal point of view- is to have young people buy in. the worst would be to have Obama Care without the mandate. that would be a sure fire recipe for fiscal disaster.
anyone notice how big Pharma is kind of silent? that's cause they got a nice carve out from Pres Obama. but hey, we don't have Lobbyist in the Obama Administration ...LMAO.
can't wait to see what the Supremes will say on this. my take is that they will uphold Obama Care.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 27, 2012 at 05:57 AM
Listen to oral arguments - Scalia nitpicking
Posted by: Why wait? | March 27, 2012 at 11:16 AM
The best you can say about Obama/Romney care is that it is far better than what we have now. It is interesting to watch Romney distance himself from his greatest achievment as Governor of Massachusetts.
Posted by: gorkri | March 27, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Out on a limb, I think Roberts will be the deciding vote. I predict Kennedy will vote against it. But Roberts might allow it. I don't think it very well-argued on the left. I don't get that. Also, Ginsberg was a little disappointing. As always, Breyer was excellent. If Roberts votes against it, I believe it will be more political than intellectual only because argued well or not, he knows precedent exists. Seemed to me his main point was that regulating payment lets government into the game and then there are no limit. The response is already in commerce in places that are questionable.
Kennedy sounds anti but Roberts might be a possible.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 27, 2012 at 06:21 PM
Sorry. The response is that government is already into commerce is question areas.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 27, 2012 at 06:23 PM
The only prediction I have is it will be a 5-4 vote. Those who favor it here are in the minority, as shown below.
Most Oppose at Least Part of Overhaul, Poll Finds
By DALIA SUSSMAN, HELENE COOPER and KATE PHILLIPS
Published: March 26, 2012
"Two-thirds of Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn some or all of the health care law, even though large majorities support a few of its major aspects, according to a poll by The New York Times and CBS News…
In fact, a grand total 67% of those polled either want to ‘overturn the mandate’ (29%) or ‘overturn the entire law’ (38%). A figure that appears no where in this article. (Apparently, it would be to much of a shock for the sensitive readers of The Times.)
By the way, notice the headline for this article. It is is positively opaque. The casual reader would have no idea what is being opposed.
In the latest poll, 47 percent said they oppose the law while 36 percent approve, with the rest having no opinion. The results are similar to previous surveys that have consistently found the law’s detractors outnumbering its supporters.
Keeping the law intact is preferred by a mere quarter of those surveyed, largely Democrats, reflecting the deep partisan divide within the overall findings that has persisted since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act just two years ago. And a bare majority of independents, an important swing group in this presidential election cycle, have remained fairly steadfast in siding with Republicans…
Yes, the polls have said the same thing since even before Obama-Care was rammed through Congress.
We the people have always hated it. And no matter how much we are told by the media and the rest of the Democrat Party that we will love it, we don’t love it.
But as has been the case since nearly the inception of the law, much confusion lingers over certain portions of it, underscoring Mr. Obama’s struggles to win public support for his benchmark legislation. In the Times/CBS News poll, less than half say they have a good understanding of the law, probably stemming in part from the fact that the provisions attracting the most opposition — like the mandate — have yet to be put into effect so therefore cannot be evaluated in tangible ways.
How many times have we been told that we don’t like Obama-Care because we are too stupid to understand it?
Yet other aspects of the law attract widespread support. Asked about a provision requiring insurance companies to cover people with a pre-existing medical condition, 85 percent said they approved of that element.
Similarly, 68 percent approved of the provision allowing children to remain on their parents’ policies until the age of 26, and 77 percent approved of a provision reducing the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients…
Even if these two points are true (and they probably aren’t), are these meager benefits worth the $1.76 trillion dollars that the CBO now estimates it will cost over the next ten years?
Most Americans say they worry that the law will raise their health expenses, and a steady majority say they are somewhat or very concerned that it will limit access to care. In addition, most agree with the Republicans’ contention that many businesses won’t be able to afford to provide coverage to employees and will be forced to cut jobs.
Republicans have painted the legislation as a government takeover, and the poll found that a majority consider the law as injecting too much government into the health care system…
It doesn’t take too much Republican painting, since that is exactly what it is."
Posted by: KS | March 27, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Even if these two points are true (and they probably aren’t),
Why do you post stuff that you don't believe? If part of it is untrue, why can't it all be untrue?
It doesn’t take too much Republican painting, since that is exactly what it is."
It was good enough for Romney in Massachusetts. The only picture Republicans are painting is the Portrait of Dorian Gray.
Krugman paints the truthful picture of Republicans
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 27, 2012 at 09:03 PM
Great Maddow on the possible trilogy from the conservative court: Bush v. Gore ("a consideration limited to this case only"); citizens united; and now Obamacare. Politicians in robes. I wonder if Roberts will allow himself to go down in history as an obstructionist and political justice? It will be his legacy.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 27, 2012 at 09:14 PM
What part do you claim is untrue ? Do you have any credible evidence ? they are results from polls - jeez... Facts are stubborn things - most Americans do not want Obamacare. Not sure if that will make matter much to the SCOTUS.
You post a biased article by Krugman, the hack. He is full of dog squeeze. A truthful picture of Republicans by a less than credible source - like trying to put lipstick on a pig. LOL
Posted by: KS | March 27, 2012 at 09:16 PM
Malloy has been in DC the last 2 days doing interviews.
Posted by: Coiler | March 27, 2012 at 09:25 PM
"First, the lie: No, President Obama did not say, as many Republicans now claim, that he wanted higher gasoline prices. He did once say that a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions would cause electricity prices to “skyrocket” — an unfortunate word choice."
Yes he said that. What Republicans besides the candidates for president said that he wanted higher gasoline prices ? Do you believe everything candidates say in campaigns, esp. the Obama propaganda machine ? His attitude seems to indicate that he is OK with his energy/gasoline prices - he also said he just hoped they didn't rise so fast, in 2009. Just because he didn't say that in public doesn't mean he doesn't really feel that way - his actions and attitude seems to indicate that he doesn't mind his gas prices and Sec. of Energy Chu has said that he wouldn't mind gas prices ($9/gal.) like Europe has. One thing anyone with half a brain should know about Obama - don't be distracted by what he says, pay attention to what he does.
Krugman is only out to indict Republicans and what he said above is just another straw man argument. Yawn.
Posted by: KS | March 27, 2012 at 09:30 PM
KS, you are the one who said it probably isn't true. Get with the program.
Thanks, Coiler. I'll check in with Malloy.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 27, 2012 at 09:33 PM
A joker quoted at the end of the article: How are we going to pay for this thing,...
The CBO says it will save money. Oh, I know, you and Rush are smarter than the CBO.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 27, 2012 at 09:39 PM
TS - you are conflating the argument. I said; "most Americans do not want Obamacare. Not sure if that will make matter much to the SCOTUS." In other words, the Supreme Court does not necessarily rule based on public opinion polls.
Posted by: KS | March 28, 2012 at 07:56 AM
I took you at your words.
Most Americans don't want some parts of Obamacare and mostly because they don't understand it. Take you, for instance. You don't understand it. Tell me what you don't like about it.
Let's put some life back into this blog. Even if it is primitive.
The part of the argument with which I disagreed most was the comment in response to a question that police and fire are "public" and healthcare is "market driven." Virelli did not respond to that.
Police and fire are public because Americans decided they would be. We can do the same with healthcare. If I recall correctly, some firemen watched a house burn down rather than save it because payment was not made.
And backyard marijuana sets precedent (and probably lots of others) simply because it can move across state lines. Government stretches every boundary when it wants to control something. I wonder what Robert's children will think of him in fifty years if he prevents healthcare which every other progressive country currently respects.
It would be interesting to hear other opinions on this.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 28, 2012 at 07:47 PM
Thom Hartmann was reading from the Constitution on his show and he claims the Supremes dont have the Constitutional authority to get rid of a law. He said that Andrew Jackson, Lincoln and FDR all argued that point but it didnt do any good.
He said the only one with the power to strike down a law is the Presient with his veto. I will have to go look it up.
Posted by: sparky | March 28, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Goldman agrees. He says the Supreme Court has become unequal and mightier than the others when it should be equal - not legislate which it does. And this Court the most activist of all.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 28, 2012 at 09:22 PM
Sparky, I listened to Hartmann's rebroadcast last night and heard him rail against the Court. We seem to be in the worst of times. Even the Christian Science Monitor Based on justices' questions in the two-hour Supreme Court health-care hearing, the fate of 'Obamacare' is in peril. Justice Kennedy expressed strong concerns about the individual mandate.
Kennedy is just old. And not in a good way. I still think Roberts is the key.
Posted by: Truith-seeker | March 29, 2012 at 04:32 PM
Heard a repeat of Hartmann's Monday morning show late lastnight and his guest said that Roberts decision on Citizens United was hurting him socially. Also, that the last thing he wants is for his court to be known as a "political Court." So the guest gave him a shot at supporting Obamacare. If he doesn't want to leave the legacy of running a "political Court" then, again, he may be the swing vote.
After hearing the Court's questions, the guest may have changed his mind. I still think the determinator/decider will be Roberts.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 31, 2012 at 09:36 AM