Quotes of the day

posted at 10:54 pm on March 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

“‘The government had in my view as bad a day as it reasonably could have,’ said Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog and a regular litigator at the high court. ‘It won’t cause the government to have a complete cardiac arrest — they’ll just be nauseous for months. … The only people coming out of that building optimistic today were the plaintiffs.’…

“In the orgy of panel discussions, interviews and feature articles previewing this week’s arguments, law professors, Supreme Court litigators and journalists confidently predicted that the justices would uphold the individual mandate as a logical extension of the federal government’s well-established ability to regulate the health insurance market…

“Within the first few minutes of Tuesday’s arguments, that bravado seemed to go out the window.

“‘Eventually, the conventional wisdom will catch up with reality,’ Goldstein joked. ‘It’s absolutely true that this argument has gotten the back of the hand from the legal glitterati, including myself.’”

***

“Sorry to keep reiterating this point, but I’ve contended since December 2010 that if the pro-ACA side is unable to articulate a limiting principle that would prevent their decision from giving the federal government an essentially plenary police power to regulate virtually all human activity and inactivity, the individual mandate is doomed. The conservative majority simply will not accept a doctrine that suggests that federal power is not one of limited and enumerated powers.

“Unfortunately for the law’s defenders, the SG today lapsed into incoherence when Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia asked him to identify a limiting principle (check out various liberal blogs for apoplectic reactions to SG Verrilli’s performance)…

“So far, we seem to be left with the ‘health care is special’ argument, which is not a limiting principle, but could persuade a conservative justice or two to join a limited holding. Yet Justice Kennedy suggested today that if the ACA is upheld, the government will soon be back arguing that some other sector of the economy is ‘special.’ Not a good day for limiting principles.”

***

“Unlike Scalia and Alito who were more animated with their comments expressing doubt about the law’s validity, Chief Justice John Roberts plainly offered some of his own concerns that at times mirrored Kennedy’s.

“He used the phrase ‘all bets are off’ twice when talking about the ways future Congresses will attempt to fix perceived problems if the law survives. ‘There’s this health care market. Everybody’s in it. So we can regulate it, and we’re going to look at a particular serious problem, which is how people pay for it. But next year, they can decide everybody’s in this market, we’re going to look at a different problem now, and this is how we’re going to regulate it. And we can compel people to do things — purchase insurance, in this case. Something else in the next case, because you’ve — we’ve accepted the argument that this is a market in which everybody participates.’

“Some of the justices wondered whether the government could compel people to exercise, eat broccoli or buy certain cars if the mandate is upheld. Verrilli maintained that wouldn’t be the case.”

***

“Reaction in the press room, although mixed, seemed more negative than reaction elsewhere. My canvassing of legal experts found pretty mixed opinions on how the case will turn out. (Walter Dellinger, the Duke law professor who supports the law, pointed out that the plaintiffs effectively made it clear that the only way to create national health insurance would be through a single-payer system, an idea most conservatives detest.)…

“One other note: As somebody who knows the policy issues, the hearing was incredibly frustrating to watch. Both judges and lawyers, on both sides, seemed not to understand the specifics of the health care market and why it would (or would not, depending on your legal philosophy) make the mandate constitutional. But, of course, that’s a pretty good argument for why judges should leave legislative judgment to the legislative branch.

“That was Verrilli’s point at the end, during final summation: That, by striking down the mandate, the judiciary would be committing an aggressive act of judicial review, stepping into matters traditionally reserved for the democratically elected Congress and president. I happen to think he’s right about that. Whether five justices of the court agree, alas, is pretty unclear at this point.”

***

“[W]ith a bit of political jujitsu, the president could turn any such defeat into a victory for a single-payer healthcare system — Medicare for all

“If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions.

“When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes.

“If they did this the public will be behind them — as will the Supreme Court.”

***

***

Via Reason TV.

***



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 3 4 5

Marcus on March 28, 2012 at 8:00 AM

lol

cmsinaz on March 28, 2012 at 8:02 AM

The conservative majority simply will not accept a doctrine that suggests that federal power is not one of limited and enumerated powers.

What is wrong with this statement? Anybody in class want to try? Bueller?

hawkdriver on March 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Holder is focused on evil white hispanic hate crimes against imaginary c**ns…and killing Mexicans.

DHChron on March 28, 2012 at 8:09 AM

*grabs cozmo’s hand-with claws OUT*

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Give a girl a compliment and look what happens.

Unless the claws and out are euphemisms for something naughty…

cozmo on March 28, 2012 at 8:12 AM

DHChron on March 28, 2012 at 8:09 AM

That Holder really doesn’t like brown people, does he.

cozmo on March 28, 2012 at 8:13 AM

cozmo on March 28, 2012 at 8:13 AM

he’s post racial unless you’re not black

DHChron on March 28, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Walter Dellinger, the Duke law professor

That, by striking down the mandate, the judiciary would be committing an aggressive act of judicial review, stepping into matters traditionally reserved for the democratically elected Congress and president.

I tried find out what this guys position on the Duke lacrosse case was and couldn’t find a position but if you read through some of the things this guy has said the quote above is indicative of what he believes; that the government should be all powerful and he rarely seems to acknowledge the existance of living, breathing, thinking citizens except as an issue that those special human beings in government have to deal with. The positions I was finding were scary, this guy thinks we are cattle.

peacenprosperity on March 28, 2012 at 8:42 AM

If this passes…good luck on removing people out of their homes who are behind on their mortgage.

right2bright on March 28, 2012 at 8:44 AM

(check out various liberal blogs for apoplectic reactions to SG Verrilli’s performance)…

Did anyone catch Wolf Blotzer yesterday interviewing someone at the SC?

“Did Verrilli seem rested?”, “Did he act like he’d had breakfast?”, “Do you think his blood sugar was low?”, “Is he actually a lawyer?”, “Did he appear to be chewing peyote?”, “Was he slurring his speech?”, “Was he wearing a Mark Levin shirt?”, “Did he actually know why he was there?”, “Was he bruised or injured appearing?” “Do you think he is a conservative operative?”, and on & on.

/ok, I embellished a bit…..

roy_batty on March 28, 2012 at 9:09 AM

/ok, I embellished a bit…..

roy_batty on March 28, 2012 at 9:09 AM

But probably not by much

NoFanofLibs on March 28, 2012 at 9:10 AM

It’s going to be fun watching all these drug companies and hospitals squirm if the mandate is declared unconstitutional, but the rest of the law remains intact. It serves them right for making all those sleazy deals with Obama and democrat lawmakers in 2009 and 2010.

http://freebeacon.com/overruling-cronyism/

Wigglesworth on March 28, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Holder is focused on evil white hispanic hate crimes against imaginary c**ns…and killing Mexicans.

DHChron on March 28, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Following Obama’s rhetoric, Holder brought the guns to a Mexican knife fight.

Gladtobehere on March 28, 2012 at 9:12 AM

roy_batty on March 28, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Back surgery man, back surgery…

cozmo on March 28, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Both judges and lawyers, on both sides, seemed not to understand the specifics of the health care market and why it would (or would not, depending on your legal philosophy) make the mandate constitutional. But, of course, that’s a pretty good argument for why judges should leave legislative judgment to the legislative branch.

The only thing Congressmen for the most part, understand is how to get themselves elected or re-elected.

Congress needs to stay out of what they don’t understand, which is 99% of what’s going on outside of the beltway.

NoDonkey on March 28, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Single Payer is the Goal.

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Single Payer is the Goal.

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Of course it is silly. It has worked so well everywhere its been tried.

cozmo on March 28, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Good morning cozmo, getting ready to hit the saw work for most of the day. Enjoyed the Hefty grade all shot. Looks like it would do a good job scraping my lane. Have you ever used it on gravel lanes? Looks like a winner in the snow.

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Nope, that’s the most work that particular machine has done since we got it (the second one is still in pieces). All I remember about grading is that I hated it. Although I hated just about everything about farm living back then. And miss it now.

And just to be clear, that was not me on the machine. I look nothing like that. If some nutball were to walk up to that guy and call him cozmo, he is liable to get this glazed look in his eyes and, as if he was about to get sick, turn a little green and swollen. They would probably never find the remains of the unfortunate soul who made the mistake of calling that guy cozmo.

cozmo on March 28, 2012 at 9:51 AM

roy_batty on March 28, 2012 at 9:09 AM

So very funny!

Cindy Munford on March 28, 2012 at 9:56 AM

c

ozmo on March 28, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Lol! One of these days I’m gonna get one of those fancy moniker links like you and share a few things about my life with folks. Except mine will work. Hint, hint. ; ) Off to work.

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM

ozmo, sorry cozmo.

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM

that’s a pretty good argument for why judges should leave legislative judgment to the legislative branch.

So The New Republic writer is arguing that the SCOTUS shouldn’t ever weigh in on the Constitutionality of Legislative action?

Maybe I’m not clear… what is the point of SCOTUS if NOT to weigh in on the Constitutionality of the actions of the two other branches?

gekkobear on March 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

That was Verrilli’s point at the end, during final summation: That, by striking down the mandate, the judiciary would be committing an aggressive act of judicial review, stepping into matters traditionally reserved for the democratically elected Congress and president.

And not striking down ObamaCare would be “committing an aggressive act of judicial review” of not protecting Americans from a blatantly unconstitutional grab of power and money from the citizens.

RJL on March 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5