Home > Blogs > Post Content
|
|
THE HILL, March 26, 2012 -- Former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued before the court mostly expect the justices to uphold President Obama's healthcare law, according to a new poll. The poll surveyed nearly 400 former clerks and roughly 240 attorneys who have practiced before the high court. Sixty-five percent said they expect the justices to uphold the individual mandate in Obama's signature healthcare law. The Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments in the healthcare case Monday. Nearly three-fourths of the attorneys polled said the court will likely reach a decision now, rather than waiting until after the mandate takes effect in 2014. And if the court does strike down the mandate, most of those surveyed said, it wouldn't throw out the entire healthcare law. Thirty-eight percent said the court would invalidate the mandate along with a few other provisions, and 36 percent said they believe the court would strike the mandate alone. Only 27 percent expect the justices to strike down the entire law.
Posted By: Richard Kigel
Monday, March 26th 2012 at 12:10PM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
|
|
|
Truly, I am not concerned about this law.
The objections to it are far-fetched and do not rely on any precedent or legal foundation. It is all based on fear and supposition.
Do the Conservatives who want the Supreme Court to reject this law really want to open themselves up to the charge that the court was an "activist" court that" legislates from the bench," as they accuse so-called runaway liberal courts of doing?
Monday, March 26th 2012 at 2:01PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
I think the objections to the law are all imaginary--they make stuff up.
they have created a long list of awful things that they think will happen if the law stands--and they are all completely nuts!!!
Wednesday, March 28th 2012 at 10:56PM
Richard Kigel
|
 |
of course it is unConstitutional..................
no FoundingFather of the American Constitution felt it necessary to worry about slavesNatives ---
and any 2012 BOZOS that think they can translate those olde slaverAMericana 1776-1800 minds would think it unneccessary in 2012 to 'do the right thing'
Thursday, March 29th 2012 at 8:48AM
powell robert
|
|
|
The administration sent their best man up there. He expected the justices to argue points of law and prececent. Instead, they argued ideology and false analogies. Scalia, himself, brought up a number of faborite Tea Party talking poitns--which most definitely are not legal arguments.
He brought up the riduculous "broccoli" argument. Even one of the most prominent conservative law scholars mocked him for that.
He also criticized by name the famous "cornhusker kickback", a backroom deal which was eliminated from the bill--it was irrelevent.
the court is on trial here just as much as Obamacare.
Friday, March 30th 2012 at 11:11PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Irma--think about this exchange.
When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli tries to explain to Justice Scalia that the health care market is unique because “getting health care service … [is] a result of the social norms to which we've obligated ourselves so that people get health care.”
Scalia’s response is a curt: “Well, don't obligate yourself to that.”
Freedom also seems to mean freedom from the obligation to treat those who show up at hospitals without health insurance, even if it means letting them bleed out on the curb.
Sunday, April 1st 2012 at 2:05PM
Richard Kigel
|
 |
@RICH, because our courts are about up holding our laws already on the books until an Amendment has been able to change our Constitution, I wish I could rememben in better detail one of the one of the presidents in protecting the Health care bill is one that was used before the Supreme Court to over come the government's taking the rights from a farmer to not be able to contiue the products he was producing for WWII for the government, because it was no longer needed.The farmeer won his case before the Supreme Court because his products were sold in all states for the good of the American citizen and as needed to help them as it did during the war. (smile)
IN ODER WRODS FOR THE GOOD OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN AND NOT FOR POLITICS / POLITICAL PARTY INTEREST NOR ONE UPMANSHIP...YES WE CAN...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
They say the transcripts can be gotten of the Supreme court arguments...and I hope, I can get some of them, because from the little feed back of what they are saying seem like only talking points to me. One liberal said let them make it illegal and allow therepublicans to get the reality blow back until they are forced to own it...who is brain dead enough to expect the right-winger will do any thing like this...this court don't even sound legal with all of this nonsense, I am hearing eventhought it is all being reported on a bias level it is still too childish to have this going on amonge what is suposed to be made up of the finest legal minds.
I don't think I have heard a logical question nor a logical answer, yet!!!!!!!!!!!! (nup)As a rule I pay no attention to the SC as they use to be like doctors to me, knowing their jobs and could be trusted...but now that I know way more of how our government works, I don't think I trust anyone running it any more...sorry Mr. President, but you are also trying to get elected. (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@Rich, have any idea how these people are going to get out of th ecornor they are in...yesterday I heard someting that made sense to me...tis person said how can they judge a law that has not been put into effect yet as to call it harmful or not? Made perfect sense to me. HOw about you? lol (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
cAN YOU SAY, "TALKING POINTS".LOL...example what does food have to do with any of this unless you need your insurance to get a stomach lap ban...food poison...
but, then how do we include/ exclude th epeople who don't like this veg. or are allegic to it or hell can't afford to buy it...makes no sense to me at all...but tis is the same court aht 'apointer bush and we got still existing wars as a result. (smile)
would it not be great to bring we don't want war or to go to prison because we don't want to kill eventough it has nothing to do with a religion..sa like it is one of the 10 Commandments or wanting to tret others as you want them not to kill your child either...since each and everyone of us were born by woman...and while I am at this, I learned toda in the cancer class how womenof child baring age are advised to use birth control when taking chemo, becaue of birth defects...oh, well I doube if this would work in politc either until we get more women in dC...or maybe he male politicians will become more like their priest and no s*x at all for the length of time their wives are in treatment...oops this is birth control also not having s*x (the egg and sprem and vigra thing)so please don't tell the Pope. (rotfl) (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@Rich, if true this just in on Morning Joe the Justices have decided to vote on the weekend that the mandate must go, and if it goes so does the precondition and the ability to raise the prices of insurance at will. (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...actually the way I see it is that what the supreme court (if true) is going to do is the very same thing they wanted to get rid of this bill in the first place is what the justices agree the republicans are wrong for going against this bill and that is the insurance must start doingwhich is what they promised its users to pay them to do when and if they need to use it. LOL!!! (smile).
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...so sorry only the mandate must go...(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@Rich, there seem to be more emphist being put today on the parents,being able to keep their children on their insurance...It is too bad none of our members are attorneys to be able to ask if this parents keeping their children on is deemed illegal by the court; will the insurance company have to return tose $millions if not$billions back to them?(smile)
I may be being blinded by bias, but there is no way I will be able to believe taht this administration would send before the SC an unprepared attorney and a Constitutional profesor on top of that by 'mistake' !(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
Rich, somethingI heard today makes perfect sense...It brought up the worst thing that majority Conservative Supreme court can do is turn down the health care law as being illegal as it will only go to show how even the supreme court is willing to take away th esafety net of our most needy....
WE SHALL SEE. (S-M-I-L-E)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...oops just over heard on Fox during the break when they give news up dates. The hostess mentioned that the over turn of the Health care bill could go in BHO's favor in NOV....
"I" believe that any person running against our president in Nov. will serve as more in his favore than any thing else. LOL (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
Blogs Home
|
|
|
