Audio: Scalia lectures Verrilli on enumerated powers

posted at 8:30 pm on March 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

The guy who uploaded this to YouTube calls it a “benchslap.” It’s loads of fun, and the point about limited powers will sound familiar. The key part comes early when Scalia jumps in to challenge Verrilli’s citation of Court precedent. Those cases dealt with commerce, he says; in this case, the legislation is aimed at people who aren’t participating in commerce, i.e. people without insurance. That’s a gut-punch to the left since, once you make that move conceptually, the Commerce Clause defense of the statute is hanging by a thread. You can follow his thinking over the rest of the clip from there. If it’s not commerce, then Congress has no power to regulate it, and if Congress has no power to regulate it, then the Tenth Amendment says this is a matter for the states. And to think, a few days ago, Democrats thought they might be able to use Scalia’s Raich opinion to swing him over to their side.

Roberts was a bit more equivocal in today’s arguments but read Philip Klein’s analysis of the rhetoric he used in his comments from the bench. There were an awful lot of phrases in there suggesting he was arguing from belief against the statute, not merely as a devil’s advocate to probe the lawyers’ arguments. Meanwhile, over at SCOTUSblog, Kevin Russell looks at Roberts’s and Alito’s questioning and wonders, “Is Kennedy the only possible fifth vote for the government?” His conclusion: Yep, pretty much. Exit question: C’mon, a Reagan appointee’s not really going to be the fifth vote for the ObamaCare mandate, is he? Good lord.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The mandate actually attempts to create commerce for Congress to regulate. That’s a new trick. I didn’t think for a millisecond that Scalia wouldn’t see through it — it’s the others I’ve been worried about.

cynccook on March 27, 2012 at 8:33 PM

So, Justice Kennedy decides the future of America..?

d1carter on March 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Scalia ate the General’s lunch. Gotta love Scalia.

Axion on March 27, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Hope this Kennedy doesn’t think like the last Kennedy.

KOOLAID2 on March 27, 2012 at 8:38 PM

So, Justice Kennedy decides the future of America..?

d1carter on March 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Been doing that for years now.

fossten on March 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM

C’mon, a Reagan appointee’s not really going to be the fifth vote for the ObamaCare mandate, is he? Good lord.

Who’s the judge on the 5th Circuit (I think) who upheld O’care a couple of months ago? And he was supposedly an ultra-conservative originalist and the day it happened Levin was apoplectic.

Then again, Drudge is reporting that the Wise Latina was even grilling Verelli today. That may not mean much but if she’s supposedly in the bag with the other commie shills, she would have at least kept her mouth shut. Or in the case of Breyer and Bader-Meinhof-Ginsburg tired to put words in the poor dummy’s mouth to help him.

PRAY. HARD.

Rixon on March 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM

So, Justice Kennedy decides the future of America..?

d1carter on March 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Story of our lives since Sandra Day left…at least he’s better than she was.

DavidW on March 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM

What is even more bothersome is that fact that this is even that close. Now the liberals will say this is nothing but political stuff….yet only liberals voted for it to be upheld.

watertown on March 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Scalia understands perfectly that if the government is allow to force you to buy things then there is no freedom left. We live to serve the state and Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness is gone.

Axion on March 27, 2012 at 8:41 PM

If any of the five retire before Dear Liar is out of office, hoo boy!

Funny how the 4 liberals are assumed to vote for upholding the law. As if they’ve already made up their minds and not going to listen to arguments.

rbj on March 27, 2012 at 8:41 PM

The mandate actually attempts to create commerce for Congress to regulate. That’s a new trick. I didn’t think for a millisecond that Scalia wouldn’t see through it — it’s the others I’ve been worried about.

cynccook on March 27, 2012 at 8:33 PM

“But we have to mandate commerce so that you can find we can regulate it.” — Nancy Pelosi

ShainS on March 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Scalia sounds as if he’s having none of it. And congrats Cyndy on keeping Bishops spot warm.

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

fossten on March 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM

But, wouldn’t you agree that this is a vote that could “fundamentally change America”..?

d1carter on March 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Oh Boy……ALL Powers Vrs. Limited Powers!

Progressives are gonna have a fit!!

canopfor on March 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Come on SCOTUS, don’t fail me. Don’t make me leave America for New Zealand. Because if this crap prevails, America as we know it is dead.

carbon_footprint on March 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

So, Justice Kennedy decides the future of America..?

d1carter

Amazing, isn’t it?

BD57 on March 27, 2012 at 8:44 PM

rbj on March 27, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Kennedy has said he will retire in 2013 IF a republican retakes the Oval Office.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 27, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Exit question: C’mon, a Reagan appointee’s not really going to be the fifth vote for the ObamaCare mandate, is he? Good lord.

excerpt by Allahpundit

.
Sandra . . . Day . . . O’Connor.

listens2glenn on March 27, 2012 at 8:46 PM

So, Justice Kennedy decides the future of America..?

d1carter on March 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM

If that’s the case, we’re f*cked, unless he joins his pal Ted in the eternal broiler.

MelonCollie on March 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

I was hoping for free Broccoli…
Oh well…
I will grow my own…

Would I be withholding Broccoli if I use it for myself???

Electrongod on March 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Unless Kennedy gives off a strong indication of voting for Obamacare in the court’s internal discussions, I expect two of the Living Constitution Justices to jump ship. Nobody actually likes the individual mandate or considers it defensible by their legal philosophy. If Bush had tried the same mandate, they would be deeming it rational grounds for the r-word. They’ll whistle past it to bring socialized medicine to America, but if they’re going to lose anyway, they’ll want to slap the concept down hard lest it be used against them.

The same principle applies to the Senate, incidentally, in the unlikely event of a Romney win and a decent GOP performance. They’ll block repeal if they can win, but if they can’t win (because of reconciliation), there will be no problems getting to 60 votes. Nobody actually likes Obamacare. If they’ve just lost another election over the issue, with Democrats facing an equally dangerous field in 2014, they’ll vote to kill it just to bury the issue.

HitNRun on March 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Team Bam’s argument tomorrow: YOU’RE A RACIST!

bernverdnardo1 on March 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Hey all you folks who are threatening to sit out the election if their preferred candidate isn’t nominated………

……….Are you paying attention now? OBO!!!

JPeterman on March 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Nobody actually likes the individual mandate or considers it defensible by their legal philosophy*

*except probably Kagan.

Also, there’s a possibility one of the liberal justices may be cynical enough to strike it down to try and rescue Obama.

HitNRun on March 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Sandra . . . Day . . . O’Connor.

listens2glenn on March 27, 2012 at 8:46 PM

And Bush 41 gave us Souter. Whatever you think of the Harriet Myers idiocy, Dubya gave us Alito and Roberts. This is why we MUST take back the party – to prevent Wiseass Latinas and Softball-playing commies and push more Borks and Thomases through.

Rixon on March 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Really wish this was decided already. The whole thing makes me anxious. If they can force us to do this, why would anyone believe future administrations would restrain themselves?

And I’ve never understood why anyone would want to give the government more power unless it is absolutely necessary. If you live long enough, chances are, the party you oppose will again control the government, one with even more control over you.

Esthier on March 27, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Justice Kennedy: 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 the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

I am encouraged by the fact that Kennedy did not add after this “And it’s about damned time, WOOT, WOOT!”

cynccook on March 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM

…….Are you paying attention now? OBO!!!

JPeterman on March 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Effing A!!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Come on SCOTUS, don’t fail me. Don’t make me leave America for New Zealand. Because if this crap prevails, America as we know it is dead.

carbon_footprint on March 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Don’t you want to stay and duke it out like the rest of us? I’ll be up here behind the Walleye Curtain, sabotaging trains, cutting telegraph wires, ambushing lone sentries.

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

…then the Tenth Amendment says this is a matter for the states.

I’m not an anarchist or anything, but forcing people to buy a health plan is not a matter for government at any level.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

forest on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Verrilli:

It will be a very serious departure from what the Court has said, that when Congress is regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, that will be upheld.

Funny how he settled back into this incomplete law student statement of law…after being asked about the limitations on the Commerce Clause.

Crispian on March 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Exit question: C’mon, a Reagan appointee’s not really going to be the fifth vote for the ObamaCare mandate, is he? Good lord.

Nope… I don’t see 5 votes to uphold ObamaCare mandate… but that doesn’t meant there are 5 votes to ban mandates in general though.

The problem with the mandate for Kennedy/Roberts may be that it unnecessarily forces some people to buy services they may know they may never need. The government’s “cost shifting” argument falls apart when you consider they could have just mandated only “catastrophic coverage”.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/218517-health-laws-benefit-requirements-could-undermine-case-for-individual-mandate

The beauty of going this route is…
1. It seems more moderate… “hey, we’re still open to mandates in some circumstances”
2. It would provide a speed bump for the push towards single payer.
3. It would make the severability issues messier… and thus easier to justify tossing out the whole law.
4. It would be a big indirect f-u to those trying to push unnecessary crap that violates religious liberty into these mandates.
5. There have been GOP reform proposals for things like social security that skirt with using a mandating power like this.

Of course, there’s a danger in not just stopping mandates like these now.

ninjapirate on March 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Oral arguments are nothing but show. The decision and dissent documents are already halfway written. The SCOTUS justices already know where they come down on this issue and any real discussion will be within their very small circle.

Happy Nomad on March 27, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Don’t you want to stay and duke it out like the rest of us? I’ll be up here behind the Walleye Curtain, sabotaging trains, cutting telegraph wires, ambushing lone sentries.

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

forces some people to buy services they may know they may never need.

forces some people to buy services they know they will never need.

ninjapirate on March 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Don’t make me leave America for New Zealand. Because if this crap prevails, America as we know it is dead.

carbon_footprint on March 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Good choice! I scouted out NZ this past November and December. Seems like it would be a good place to go. It reminded me of what it was like in the US in the 60s and 70s… safe, friendly, simple… and people wished me “Merry Christmas”… not that “happy holidays” crap.

behiker on March 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

……….Are you paying attention now? OBO!!!

JPeterman on March 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Not me, I’m distracted by the beautiful celestial imagery. Its has been quite fantastic.

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

If that’s the case, we’re f*cked, unless he joins his pal Ted in the eternal broiler.

MelonCollie on March 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

What a lovely sentiment! Do you work for Hallmark?

katy the mean old lady on March 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Don’t you want to stay and duke it out like the rest of us? I’ll be up here behind the Walleye Curtain, sabotaging trains, cutting telegraph wires, ambushing lone sentries.

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I’m really torn on that subject myself. An online friend of mine is seriously urging to set up shop in NZ, and the scene here will not be pretty…but I just don’t know.

MelonCollie on March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Not me, I’m distracted by the beautiful celestial imagery. Its has been quite fantastic.

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Thanks for the reminder.

JPeterman on March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

What a lovely sentiment! Do you work for Hallmark?

katy the mean old lady on March 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

As if you had any delicate sensibilities to offend in the first place.

MelonCollie on March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

SCOTUS site links to the orders, case filings, etc., of ObamaCare: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx

That’s where I found a transcript link, if any would like to read it. Scalia gets going on about p. 26.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

Scalia’s in-your-face Constitution benchslap is sorely needed.

The argument here is that this also is — may be necessary, but it’s not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What — what is left? If the government can do this, what — what else can it not do?

…I mean, the Tenth Amendment says the powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved, not just to the States, but to the States and the people. And the argument here is that the people were left to decide whether they want to buy insurance or not.

It should be a requirement that Scalia grills all new Congressional Reps and Senators on the Constitution (the President and Veep as well). Then maybe they’d better understand the document they’re swearing to “support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

INC on March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Good choice! I scouted out NZ this past November and December. Seems like it would be a good place to go. It reminded me of what it was like in the US in the 60s and 70s… safe, friendly, simple… and people wished me “Merry Christmas”… not that “happy holidays” crap.

behiker on March 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Do they not have gun control over there? I looked into it once, and was told I’d have to leave my guns here.

sage0925 on March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Who knew it would come from within?

John the Libertarian on March 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I can’t believe that any competent judge would not invalidate this monstrous mandate. The so call liberal judges must think they are there to uphold whatever they think would be good to uphold, never mind the Constitution. If this mandate goes through, Americans can be forced (by penalty) to buy anything needed to make a Congress created program work. This is clearly an unconstitutional congressional power grab and I think Justice Kennedy will in the end strike it down.

Chessplayer on March 27, 2012 at 9:04 PM

As if you had any delicate sensibilities to offend in the first place.

MelonCollie on March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Be that as it may, I don’t wish death on the deciding vote. Not a plan ahead type are you?

katy the mean old lady on March 27, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Happy Nomad on March 27, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Be that as it may, Scalia is saying to Obama’s attorney what we who opposed this unconstitutional monstrosity wanted to say to Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all of their minions.

INC on March 27, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Who knew it would come from within?

John the Libertarian on March 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Actually, after the fall of the Soviets, I’ve always believed that if America was to be undone, it would come from within.

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Be that as it may

katy the mean old lady on March 27, 2012 at 9:04 PM

:)

INC on March 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Who knew it would come from within?

John the Libertarian on March 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

The biggest threats to the USA have been from within, historically speaking. And this is par for the course for powerful nations.

Just look at the past 70 years: we won a two-front world war after suffering a massive sneak attack, then within 15 years of winning said war, promptly lost our collective cultural minds.

MelonCollie on March 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

O/T….another MeltDown,this time US AirWays!

Woman restrained on US Airways flight from North Carolina, an employee says

Submitted 3 mins ago from www2.nbc17.com
http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

CHARLOTTE, N.C.
March 27 2012
**************

A passenger on US Airways flight 1697 from Charlotte to Ft. Myers had to be restrained and put in hand ties after creating “drama” on board, according to an airline employee.

The flight arrived shortly after 6 p.m. and was greeted by police and EMS.

The woman was taken out of the airport by police once the plane arrived.

She was observed by medics in the terminal before being taken away. During that time she was screaming and crying.

Passengers on board were shaken, one saying the woman was restrained against a wall before being tied. Others praised the flight crew on how they handled the situation.(More…)
=======================================================

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/mar/27/woman-restrained-flight-north-carolina-ar-2095407/

canopfor on March 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Who knew it would come from within?

John the Libertarian on March 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Someone has to turn off the security grid which will allow all those Cuban troop transports to waltz right into our airspace, I’m betting it will be Mooch.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM

This is such a feckless argument. If it stands, nothing will be out of bounds in the path to regulate “Healthcare”. Maintain a good weight and eating well affects the cost of healthcare a lot more than having 30-40 million people not paying into it.

Why not mandate gym memberships? Why not mandating the purchase of food from government-run supermarkets? Why not a federal law to ban smoking? Why not a penalty for being overweight? Why not government policed exercises every morning at 6am? All for the purposes of regulating “Healthcare” as commerce.

Sound ludicrous? Not so much now that you understand the government’s position in this case.

Limited government is the foundation of the Constitution. Embrace that and this is a 9-0 decision.

rgrovr on March 27, 2012 at 9:08 PM

After two years there is still no answer for: forced purchase of broccoli, and trying to tell what the limiting principle is.

You would think the space cadets on the Left would at least have tried to get something together on the basics… then Scalia comes along with the funeral insurance analogy… suddenly there ARE other things that are the equivalent of the health care market AND inevitable that you will participate in.

Scalia gives the blindside hipcheck like nobody’s business.

Plus don’t forget the Medicaid Mandate that was talked about today… just as important because it makes the States subservient to the federal government. There is more than ONE mandate in the Obamacare trainwreck.

ajacksonian on March 27, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I believe it is New Zealand which is the last nation to be irradiated by the nuclear clouds in the book “On the Beach”, effectively ending all human civilization on Earth.

So NZ may be a haven, but you’ll simply be delaying the inevitable. Better to stay in America raiding food trucks and carving kill-hashmarks in your rifle stock.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Thanks for the reminder.

JPeterman on March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Had the tele on it the last few evenings. The red planet has been great. The moon has been perfect started viewing at 4%, tonight is 24% and the alignment with Venus and Jupiter has been spectacular.

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 9:12 PM

I want to see Barack, the Constitutional scholar (teehee), go up against Scalia. Hell, I want him to come up against most of us here .

SouthernGent on March 27, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Do they not have gun control over there? I looked into it once, and was told I’d have to leave my guns here.

sage0925 on March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

I haven’t checked out the gun control, but I’m sure it’s fairly difficult to have them there. There are other laws I wouldn’t be happy with either, and it was expensive there. However, the tradeoffs were worth it to me. It has a lifestyle that suits me, especially the endless outdoor activity options and great weather.

behiker on March 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

More kubuki theater from our Overlords in DC.

bloviator on March 27, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Actually, after the fall of the Soviets, I’ve always believed that if America was to be undone, it would come from within.

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Yes, because the communists here still have a lot of power.

SouthernGent on March 27, 2012 at 9:14 PM

What a lovely sentiment! Do you work for Hallmark?

katy the mean old lady on March 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

http://www.jumbojoke.com/rejected_hallmark_cards.html

arnold ziffel on March 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Hell, I want him to come up against most of us here .

SouthernGent on March 27, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Would pay big bucks to enjoy that from the bleachers seats. Lol!

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Lets see,didn’t HilRod try to Hi-Jack 1/3 of the
US Economy through HealthCare,if I have my facts
correct!!

canopfor on March 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

So NZ may be a haven, but you’ll simply be delaying the inevitable. Better to stay in America raiding food trucks and carving kill-hashmarks in your rifle stock.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Good point. If trouble comes, I want to give it back to the ones who brung it.

arnold ziffel on March 27, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Maybe we should have a government option for healthcare. For those that want to place their life in the hands of the government, they can agree to pay for a government plan that covers what the government wants to cover with only doctors and other medical resources that agree to be part of the government plan.

The money collected from the suckers participants would be put in Al Gore’s lockbox. The premiums collected can not be used for any other government program AND the government cannot borrow or use ANY funding from other government programs. Once the funds are gone for the year, the medical care is gone for the suckers participants .

In addition, the private health care system option (the rest of us) will have no legal obligation to cover the uninsured or illegal aliens. The government suckers participants will have to rely on the charity of friends, family and the community when the funds are exhausted.

If they want choice and want to be do-gooders, then let’s them share the cost (and benefits-hahahhahahha) of their convictions.

bigjacket on March 27, 2012 at 9:17 PM

…then the Tenth Amendment says this is a matter for the states.

I’m not an anarchist or anything, but forcing people to buy a health plan is not a matter for government at any level.

forest on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

And not just any plan, but it has to be a plan with sex changes, chiropractors, and all kinds of other bogus crap.

pedestrian on March 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Would pay big bucks to enjoy that from the bleachers seats. Lol!

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Nope. Afraid you’re lead off batter. Something tells me you wouldn’t break a sweat.

arnold ziffel on March 27, 2012 at 9:19 PM

SouthernGent on March 27, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Ha ha. My mind is too simplistic for his nuances!

I’d have to go Breitbart and say, “So?” at some of his maneuvering lies and then continue, “What does that have to do with the Constitution?”

INC on March 27, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Don’t you want to stay and duke it out like the rest of us? I’ll be up here behind the Walleye Curtain, sabotaging trains, cutting telegraph wires, ambushing lone sentries.

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Bishop:Yup,and I’ll be running a Whisky/Bacon Trading Post,
for R@R,and supplies for the cause,sneak’n across
St.Marys River,at the dead of nite,to help my Patroits,
south of my location!:)

canopfor on March 27, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I was hoping for free Broccoli…
Oh well…
I will grow my own…
Electrongod on March 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

You can have mine.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 27, 2012 at 9:20 PM

It’s way past time to stop the abuse of the Commerce Clause. It’s meaning should be clear to a high school student. Most of what has become precedent since Wickard is unconstitutional. The Feds use the CC to micromanage the economy in ways never conceived by the Founders.

Charlemagne on March 27, 2012 at 9:21 PM

The states will have to save us via federalism.

Charlemagne on March 27, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Feds use the CC to micromanage the economy in ways never conceived by the Founders.

Charlemagne on March 27, 2012 at 9:21 PM

“Founders”? We don’t need no stinkin founders.

arnold ziffel on March 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

“…then the Tenth Amendment says this is a matter for the states.”

I’m not an anarchist or anything, but forcing people to buy a health plan is not a matter for government at any level.

forest on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I agree, plus Scalia pointed out the Tenth Amendment also includes the word, “people”.

…I mean, the Tenth Amendment says the powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved, not just to the States, but to the States and the people.

INC on March 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Dear God,
Please grant these judges discernment and wisdom; please allow them to recognize the rights You gave us as your children and honor that gift by protecting it for us.

Amen.

cptacek on March 27, 2012 at 9:25 PM

People “not participating” in insurance purchases are self-insuring. It’s common in insurance. The Solicitor General should have argued that fact instead of mumbling through his nonsense today, and he would have won over even Scalia.

Thank the lord above he didn’t do it, because these clowns are going to see their pet creation, FrankenCare or Obamanstein or whatever you call it, blown away.

In the midst of several wars, runaway debt and spending, massive unemployment, these SCOAMF’s screwed around with their socialist dream instead.

MTF on March 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I’m pleased to see this question from Chief Justice Roberts.

“Well, but it’s critical how you define the market. If I understand the law, the policies that you’re requiring people to purchase involve — must contain provision for maternity and newborn care, pediatric services, and substance use treatment. It seems to me that you cannot say that everybody is going to need substance use treatment, substance use treatment or pediatric services, and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase. You cannot say that everybody is going to participate in the substance abuse market or pediatric services and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase.”

This is an often-missed part of the socialistic nature of the mandate. It’s not just that there is a mandate to purchase insurance. Th government also strictly controls not just the kind of insurance but the exact type of coverage that the policy must contain. In effect, the government doesn’t just require you to purchase insurance. It requires you to purchase insurance that includes substance abuse coverage, pediatric care, pregnancy, contraception, and abortion.

It’s often treated as if this mandated coverage only applies to the insurance company. But if every insurance company policy is required to cover substance abuse, then every insurance buyer is required to purchase substance abuse insurance. If every policy offered must cover pregnancy, then every person is required to buy insurance for pregnancy, even if well past childbearing years.

Let’s face it: this kind of mandate is just taxation by a third party to let the government create more social programs without having to come up with funds to pay for them.

tom on March 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I hope that when Verrilli was listing all the precedents for usurping the rights of the people that Scalia was thinking “You’re right, we need to declare those unconstitutional also.”

pedestrian on March 27, 2012 at 9:27 PM

..if Congress has no power to regulate it, then the Tenth Amendment says this is a matter for the states.

A matter to the states OR the people. Please edit your article to add what is most likely the most important part of our Constitution that defines ‘self-government’.

rgrovr on March 27, 2012 at 9:27 PM

http://www.jumbojoke.com/rejected_hallmark_cards.html

arnold ziffel on March 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Thanks! Needed that laugh.

katy the mean old lady on March 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

canopfor on March 27, 2012 at 9:20 PM

We will need code names.

I’ll be “The Iguana” and you can be…uh…”Cornholio”. Ok?

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Don’t you want to stay and duke it out like the rest of us? I’ll be up here behind the Walleye Curtain, sabotaging trains, cutting telegraph wires, ambushing lone sentries.

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM
WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!! Cheeseheads

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

FIFY, the remake is supposed to take place in Wisconsin.

RickB on March 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Yes, because the communists here still have a lot of power.

SouthernGent on March 27, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Hell, they’re in the WH and both houses of Congress.

Rio Linda Refugee on March 27, 2012 at 9:32 PM

A matter to the states OR the people. Please edit your article to add what is most likely the most important part of our Constitution that defines ‘self-government’.

rgrovr on March 27, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I was worried that Scalia was not going to ever mention that part of the amendment. I’m glad that he finally did.

Troll Feeder on March 27, 2012 at 9:33 PM

let’s just call Obamacare for what it really is. It is the attempt by the fed gov to make us all indentured servants. Obamacare was outlawed in this country when the 13th amendment was passed.

unseen on March 27, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Excellent bench-slap (I love that!) by Scalia.

I’m glad that he pointed out that the govenrment’s case is based on confusing health insurance and health care – for which the Vermin really ought to be held in contempt, as trying to pass bald-faced lies as fact to the court is an act of ultimate contempt.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 27, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Let’s face it: this kind of mandate is just taxation by a third party to let the government create more social programs without having to come up with funds to pay for them.

tom on March 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM

That’s exactly why premiums are projected to dramatically rise. Everyone has to pay for everything. 50-55% of all health care costs are due to lifestyle- obesity, drinking, smoking, bad diets, lack of exercise, etc.

The responsible have to pay more, irresponsible pay less.

Liberalism 101.

Chuck Schick on March 27, 2012 at 9:40 PM

They force me to buy the bombs they drop.

dft2000 on March 27, 2012 at 9:42 PM

It’s way past time to stop the abuse of the Commerce Clause. It’s meaning should be clear to a high school student. Most of what has become precedent since Wickard is unconstitutional. The Feds use the CC to micromanage the economy in ways never conceived by the Founders.

Charlemagne on March 27, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I hated my Con Law course for exactly this reason. I thought most of the Commerce Clause decisions lacked any logic – just the Court reaching the “desired” result. Hated writing the exam as I did not believe anything I wrote for it – but those were the “correct” legal answers.

Over50 on March 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Hey all you folks who are threatening to sit out the election if their preferred candidate isn’t nominated………

……….Are you paying attention now? OBO!!!

JPeterman on March 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM

EXACTLY!!!

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Don’t you want to stay and duke it out like the rest of us? I’ll be up here behind the Walleye Curtain, sabotaging trains, cutting telegraph wires, ambushing lone sentries.

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I’ll be here in Utah Leading Ambushes in Box Elder Canyon as well as creating havoc from the tops of various mountains and hills.

Boulders and even rocks make great ammo if they have enough vertical distance to cover. Landslides can easily bury tanks and infantry as well as simply block off routes.

Chaz706 on March 27, 2012 at 9:47 PM

They can do anything they want with the health care law. I will just not obey it or pay their tax/penalty.

What are then gonna do? come after me with guns a blazing?

Answer: Yes.

That would not be conducive to my health or theirs so it would kind of defeat the purpose of their supposed intent.

Healthcare at the point of a gun is the pinnacle of irony.

esnap on March 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I couldn’t figure out what about this conversation struck me as so unusual. Then I realized it. I was hearing a lib (Verrilli) arguing with a conservative (Scalia) without sneering.

smellthecoffee on March 27, 2012 at 9:50 PM

I am still pissed with Kagan’s fingerprints all over Obamascare that she did not do the honorable thing and recuse herself…yeah I know, liberal and honor don’t mingle with each other…

hillsoftx on March 27, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Limited government is the foundation of the Constitution. Embrace that and this is a 9-0 decision.

rgrovr on March 27, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Abortion negatively impacts commerce because it removes participants.

So, shouldn’t abortion be made illegal under the Commerce Clause?

malclave on March 27, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Don’t you want to stay and duke it out like the rest of us? I’ll be up here behind the Walleye Curtain, sabotaging trains, cutting telegraph wires, ambushing lone sentries.

Red Dawn really can come true if you just believe.

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Shouldn’t that be BADGERS!!!!!

BTW, don’t warn her when she shows up but did you know they’ve been seen over there using a Bluegill for bait for walleyes.

Yoop on March 27, 2012 at 9:55 PM

We will need code names.

I’ll be “The Iguana” and you can be…uh…”Cornholio”. Ok?

Bishop on March 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

I’m not so keen on sending the message “Save us Cornholio, you’re our only hope!”

But if it has to be done, I will.

Peri Winkle on March 27, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2