Interview: Prof. Randy Barnett reviews Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare

posted at 1:55 pm on March 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Now that three days and six sessions of Supreme Court oral argument on ObamaCare have finished, what conclusions can we reach about how the decision will go? Earlier today I spoke with Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center, who represented the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) in the court challenge to the PPACA, and who attended all six sessions as an observer on their behalf.  We spoke about the dangers of making assumptions from oral arguments, the performance of Solicitor General Donald Verilli, and the impact of government regulation on smaller businesses versus larger competitors:

Video streaming by Ustream

Professor Barnett spoke about the nature of the legal analysis in the media, before and after the sessions this week.  The shock, shock seen in the media and on the Left in response to the difficult nature of the questioning comes from a level of cocooning among liberal analysts, Barnett suggests more than once in the interview.  That has led them to overreact to the tough questioning offered by the justices, especially the conservative justices, with a sky-is-falling hysteria.  Barnett says he feels “very good” after the six sessions, and that as an attorney it’s better to feel good than bad walking out the door, but “I don’t feel confident that I know for sure what’s going to happen” with the decision.

Toward the end, I return to the Left’s reaction and the impulse to blame Verilli for how the administration’s argument seems to have failed.  “It goes back to the echo chamber,” Barnett replies.  “I think it’s really unfair,” he says of the torrent of criticism that rained down on Verilli.  “I’m not saying he had a world class day — I think Paul [Clement] and Mike [Carvin] did much better.”  However, Verilli made all of the arguments that the administration had prepared for the case, and it’s not Verilli’s fault that the justices treated them with considerable skepticism; it’s the fault of the law itself.  “They just didn’t sell,” Barnett explains.  “They sold to some of the justices you’d expect them to, they didn’t sell to others.” Barnett was surprised that Verilli didn’t seem prepared for the conservative rebuttals, but “he’s in good company,” Barnett says, “if you read some of the law professors that are writing in places like Salon today.  They were unprepared for it, even though they should know better.”

Be sure to listen to all of it, including Barnett’s dismissal of the relevance of Raich and Justice Scalia’s opinion on that case.  Barnett argued the losing side in Raich and says it’s another instance of the echo chamber feeding poor analysis.  At the end, though, he warns us not to jump to conclusions on how the court will rule.


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

Can Pelosi “deem” the SCOTUS ruling to have approved of the mandate?

PappyD61 on March 29, 2012 at 1:59 PM

SCOTUS has to approve the mandate to find out what’s in it.

pedestrian on March 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM

At the end, though, he warns us not to jump to conclusions on how the court will rule.

Why do I feel like we’re being set up for a huge disappointment?

rhombus on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

“if you read some of the law professors that are writing in places like Salon today. They were unprepared for it, even though they should know better.”

How can they know any better? They’ve been blinded for decades by their own failed ideology.

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

However, Verilli made all of the arguments that the administration had prepared for the case,

The finale is the Ch*wbacca Defense, then they will win.

batterup on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Why do I feel like we’re being set up for a huge disappointment?

rhombus on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

It’s called being “cautiously optimistic”.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Toward the end, I return to the Left’s reaction and the impulse to blame Verilli for how the administration’s argument seems to have failed.

Classic case of “blaming the messenger instead of the message”.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Because the Court could punt as it has on Affirmative Action and other things.

However, this isn’t the late Thirties. Obama is nowhere near as powerful as FDR and he can’t pack the Court.

victor82 on March 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I read iron clad and irrefutable analysis yesterday that SCOTUS is lazy, so they won’t rule the mandate unconstitutional because that would mean more work.

NotCoach on March 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Why do I feel like we’re being set up for a huge disappointment?

rhombus on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

AP is rubbing off on all of us, I think.

lorien1973 on March 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The Dems always find someone to blame: Bush, the 1%, Republicans, etc. when their plans fail. It’s not Verilli’s fault that he was tasked with arguing an imposible position.

29Victor on March 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Why do I feel like we’re being set up for a huge disappointment?

rhombus on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Experience.

29Victor on March 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

However, Verilli made all of the arguments that the administration had prepared for the case,

If Verilli had used all those, he would have said things like:

- opposing the bill is racist
- the Constitution is racist
- why not pass it? its free!
- this will hurt 0bama in an election year

pedestrian on March 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

AP is rubbing off on all of us, I think.

lorien1973 on March 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

That explains the chafing.

29Victor on March 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

AP is rubbing off on all of us, I think.

lorien1973 on March 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

ewwwwwwww

pedestrian on March 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

If Verilli had used all those, he would have said things like:

- opposing the bill is racist
- the Constitution is racist
- why not pass it? its free!
- this will hurt 0bama in an election year

pedestrian on March 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Don’t forget: It’s a Big F***ing Deal

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

That has led them to overreact to the tough questioning offered by the justices, especially the conservative justices, with a sky-is-falling hysteria.

Nothing new was said in the oral arguments. Everyone has known these exact arguments about PACACA/ObamaCare since the very beginning. Since before the beginning.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Cocooning is part of it for the media analysts, but having an acute rooting interest is making them look foolish too.

This is like their superbowl – a real BFD – the best shot at marginalizing the Constitution and destroying the concept of enumerated powers in their lifetime. They can taste it.

forest on March 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Georgetown Law huh?

Think Sandra Fluke has taken any of his classes?

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Why do I feel like we’re being set up for a huge disappointment?

rhombus on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

As I see it, there isn’t much of a downside to being set up for a huge disappointment.

If the decision goes our way, we can all celebrate.

If the decision does not go our way–after we’ve been built up–we can turn our anger to the ballot box.

In either case, it’s a good thing for conservatives to be emotionally invested in this decision.

Burke on March 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Classic case of “blaming the messenger instead of the message”.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

It’s what the left always does. They can’t believe that their ideas are wrong, it’s always the messaging.

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Congress-critters had long ago admitted time and again in public that they had no Constitutional basis for PACACA. Nanzi Pelousi laughed off even the thought of having to find Constitutional justification. That idiot in Michigan laughed at being constrained by the Constitution. Alcee Hastings, impeached and convicted ex-federal judge and current dem Congress-critter, laughed about how “we make the rules up as we go”. And on and on.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Barnett was surprised that Verilli didn’t seem prepared for the conservative rebuttals, but “he’s in good company,” Barnett says, “if you read some of the law professors that are writing in places like Salon today. They were unprepared for it, even though they should know better.”

Why should they? They’ve never really had to work hard or earn something, or to fail after working very very hard and learn from it. This is what happens when one dances down the easy route – they are sorely unprepared for when they actually have to do or know something.

They expected to be given a participation badge and received a kick to the backside instead.

kim roy on March 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

But is

Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center

a real professor, or a Chicago Constitutional Law Professor (wink, wink)?

It makes ALL the difference!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on March 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

NotCoach on March 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Why would they be lazy?They have to live under this law too.

docflash on March 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Barnett says he feels “very good” after the six sessions, and that as an attorney it’s better to feel good than bad walking out the door

I don’t know about the rest of your readers but when I was in college, walking out of final exam feeling “good” usually resulted in a poor grade (i.e. I misread the questions).

Funny in that in those exams where I thought I bombed, I did very well, probably because everybody else misread the questions.

I have a feeling this decision will be graded on a curve.

teejk on March 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I hope the supreme court overturns obamacare so none of us have to find out what is in it!

8th Amendment to the Constitution!

Dr. Demento on March 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Georgetown Law huh?

Think Sandra Fluke has taken any of his classes?

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

If so, she clearly isn’t learning anything.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

No Eeyore alert just yet, snoopy dance on hold

cmsinaz on March 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I read iron clad and irrefutable analysis yesterday that SCOTUS is lazy, so they won’t rule the mandate unconstitutional because that would mean more work.

NotCoach on March 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

The mandate is toast. It’s going down 5-4. What is at question is whether they will try to salvage any of the rest of the 2,700 page monstrosity. Going through THAT woul require a LOT of hard work, and would amount to a court “line item veto’ing” a law. I can’t see them doing that. Which means they will either strike down the WHOLE THING (and they have a convenient excuse to do so given the servability clause was taken out) or they say that everything BUT the mandate is Constitutional.

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Teejk, same here post exams

cmsinaz on March 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center

What a stellar endoresement of the professor’s teaching abilities…

Thirty-year-old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, who told a House Steering and Policy Committee hearing convened by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last month that contraception can cost a student $3,000 during law school, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that she did not know that the Target store 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for just $9.

Forgive me if this professor’s credibility does not impress me.

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM

If the Supremes repeal the entire law, can we break out the HUMPBOT?

We’re way overdue for some humpbot action, I tell ya!!!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on March 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Georgetown Law huh?

Think Sandra Fluke has taken any of his classes?

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

They also say Obama graduated with Honors from Harvard!!!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Going through THAT woul require a LOT of hard work, and would amount to a court “line item veto’ing” a law. I

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM

If having the SCOTUS look at each provision of just one law for constitutionality is cruel and unusual, then forcing the whole country to comply with it is cruel and unusual also.

pedestrian on March 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The mandate is toast. It’s going down 5-4. What is at question is whether they will try to salvage any of the rest of the 2,700 page monstrosity. Going through THAT woul require a LOT of hard work, and would amount to a court “line item veto’ing” a law. I can’t see them doing that. Which means they will either strike down the WHOLE THING (and they have a convenient excuse to do so given the servability clause was taken out) or they say that everything BUT the mandate is Constitutional.

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I don’t see how they could leave everything except the mandate intact without going through the rest of it. There’s an awful lot of discretion given to the HHS Secretary and she has already trampled on the First Amendment with the contraception mandate. That mandate should have to be rule unconstitutional as well as the main mandate.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

t’s what the left always does. They can’t believe that their ideas are wrong, it’s always the messaging.

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

That’s why they are always defining bi-partisanship as doing things their way or saying a good conservative is one who lets liberals have their way. Libs are a bunch of arrogant you-know-whats. But of course, professing to be wise, they became fools.

yhxqqsn on March 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM

If the Supremes repeal the entire law, can we break out the HUMPBOT?

We’re way overdue for some humpbot action, I tell ya!!!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on March 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

It’s only been 2 weeks since it was last broken out (after Duke lost in the NCAA tournament).

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

They also say Obama graduated with Honors from Harvard!!!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

That’s what they say

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM

The Honey Badger on March 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Turn the Honey badger loose on it!

LMAO!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Let’s get something straight here. ObamaCare is not “The Affordable Health Care Act”. It is an assassination attempt on the United States Constitution by a mentally sick man who wants to murder it. What Booth was to Lincoln, Obama wants to be to America’s Constitution.

VorDaj on March 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

AP is rubbing off on all of us, I think.

lorien1973 on March 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I have lotion…

Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM

That’s why they are always defining bi-partisanship as doing things their way or saying a good conservative is one who lets liberals have their way. Libs are a bunch of arrogant you-know-whats. But of course, professing to be wise, they became fools.

yhxqqsn on March 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Bipartisan is when a lot of liberal democrats favor something and a couple RINOs (liberal republican) go along with it. The opposite is never “bipartisan”

Compromise is when conservatives give in to liberals. The opposite is never “compromise”.

That’s why I dislike BOTH! Name any act of “bipartisanship” or “compromise” hasn’t been exactly what I’ve described in the past 10 years?

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM

The shock, shock seen in the media and on the Left in response to the difficult nature of the questioning comes from a level of cocooning among liberal analysts, Barnett suggests more than once in the interview.

Cocooning? Ut oh. Now you will have Al Sharpton after you. Inbreeding would be more accurate anyway.

VorDaj on March 29, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Turn the Honey badger loose on it!

LMAO!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM

How many times would the Honey Badger pass out from all the poison in those 2,700 pages eating it?

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM

They also say Obama graduated with Honors from Harvard!!!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

That’s what they say

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Even if true he clearly learned nothing from it. Barry Soetoro is the worst salesman for a Harvard (or Ivy League) education of all time.

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Sorry, I don’t follow basketball, so I didn’t see it. My bad.

Turn the Honey badger loose on it!

LMAO!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM

After what I did to the cobra? What are you thinkin’?

I’ve got my heart set on some rancid, old, stankin’ liberal4life.

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on March 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I don’t think anyone should get their hopes up about ObamaCare being completely repealed via the court. Barnett is right, the left is overreacting. (I personally want SCOTUS to have the “capital” to deal a blow on affirmative action and have it stick forever)

People should get their hopes up about the federal government powers being limited in the biggest way since the New Deal. I think that’s pretty much a guarantee but don’t be surprised if they’re creative about it.

ninjapirate on March 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM

“They just didn’t sell,” Barnett explains. “They sold to some of the justices you’d expect them to, they didn’t sell to others.” Barnett was surprised that Verilli didn’t seem prepared for the conservative rebuttals, but “he’s in good company,” Barnett says, “if you read some of the law professors that are writing in places like Salon today. They were unprepared for it, even though they should know better.”

They really were blindsided by the fact the conservative justices would push back? All the stories leading up to the oral arguments seemed to indicate the left was completely certain they had a slam dunk case… I’m not a lawyer, just a confused layman,.. but even I could see the merits of the Constitutional side.

Was it just attempting to intimidate the conservative justices ahead of time, hinting at a massive backlash if their (sneer .. weak, tepid and lame defense of the Constitution was illegitimate,.. snicker)..

or are they simply that level of arrogant?

seems to be the latter…

mark81150 on March 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM

It’s my cousin, Verrilli’s fault!
/

ghostwalker1 on March 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM

How many times would the Honey Badger pass out from all the poison in those 2,700 pages eating it?

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Remember: “Honey Badger don’t give a sh1t!”

Seriously, when I showed the video to my wife after everyone I know said it reminded them of me, she said “Yeah, only you could eat something, have it almost kill you, then wake up and finish eating it.”

Mrs. Honey Badger be bad too! Uh-huh!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on March 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM

It’s somebody elses fault!
(should be the new O bumper sticker)

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Why do I feel like we’re being set up for a huge disappointment?

rhombus on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Hope I’m wrong, but I’m thinking the same thing. Every since I heard Kennedy sound like he would come down on the right side of this, I’ve been worried. Kennedy might just be building cover for himself when he votes to uphold this botched abortion.

He can later say, I really, really, really, really considered all sides of this before voting it constitutional, unlike the idealogs, SotoMayor, Baby Ruth, Breyer and that other Scank’, what’s her name?

Alabama Infidel on March 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM

The mandate is toast. It’s going down 5-4. What is at question is whether they will try to salvage any of the rest of the 2,700 page monstrosity. Going through THAT woul require a LOT of hard work, and would amount to a court “line item veto’ing” a law. I can’t see them doing that. Which means they will either strike down the WHOLE THING (and they have a convenient excuse to do so given the servability clause was taken out) or they say that everything BUT the mandate is Constitutional.

What’s ironic is that striking down the whole law would be denounced more as being “judicially activistic” than “line item veto’ing”.

With that in mind, I personally think they should do the “line item veto’ing” and take out as much of the law as possible. Anything that remotely depends on the mandate should be tossed.

My pet issue is affirmative action so I’d prefer them to keep the “capital” to deal with that later this year.

ninjapirate on March 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

If we can’t count on the supreme court to uphold the constitution all bets are off.

Perhaps the Mayans weren’t talking about an asteroid or galactic alignment or niburu destroying civilization. Maybe they were talking about liberal progressive socialists getting mowed over by citizens defending their freedoms, eh?

Wolfmoon on March 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM

The Supreme Court has been way over-politicised in a number of cases, but I don’t know how they could possibly do anything but repeal the entire law.

You don’t need a law degree; if you can read, write and speak english, you understand the total unconstitutionality of this load of toilet paper.

That only disqualifies one Justice, by the way!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on March 29, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I’ve been holding my breath over this since Obama was elected. If this whole fiasco is put in the round file, I’m going to finally exhale and find some very creative ways to celebrate.

parteagirl on March 29, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Hope I’m wrong, but I’m thinking the same thing. Every since I heard Kennedy sound like he would come down on the right side of this, I’ve been worried. Kennedy might just be building cover for himself when he votes to uphold this botched abortion.

I get the same feeling.

I do not get the doom and gloom from the left, and the excitement from the right. It was naive for the left to think Scalia, Roberts or Alito was voting to uphold the law. And it was naive for them to expect Kennedy to not ask a tough question or two. And I sense that much of their doom and gloom comes from that.

As for the right, just because Kennedy asked some questions that seem to think he would be for declaring the law unconstitutional, I do not think that he is a given to do just that.

To me, we are where I thought we would be. 4 votes for the law being constitutional, 4 votes for it being unconstitutional, and 1 vote that will decide the fate of healthcare in this country.

The only positive is that Kennedy has leaned to the right much more in commerce clause, and other fiscal type issues, than social issues. But even that does not mean that he is a slam dunk.

milcus on March 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM

It’s somebody elses fault!
(should be the new O bumper sticker)

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Can Obama blame Bush for Verilli?

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Verilli made all of the arguments that the administration had prepared for the case, and it’s not Verilli’s fault that the justices treated them with considerable skepticism; it’s the fault of the law itself.

“Why won’t dogs eat this dog food? We need new marketing!”

Akzed on March 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

If we can’t count on the supreme court to uphold the constitution all bets are off.

Perhaps the Mayans weren’t talking about an asteroid or galactic alignment or niburu destroying civilization. Maybe they were talking about liberal progressive socialists getting mowed over by citizens defending their freedoms, eh?

Wolfmoon on March 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM

This!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on March 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Hope I’m wrong, but I’m thinking the same thing. Every since I heard Kennedy sound like he would come down on the right side of this, I’ve been worried. Kennedy might just be building cover for himself when he votes to uphold this botched abortion.

I think Kennedy will be ok on the mandate. He’s usually ok for issues like this… when it comes to religious liberty or social issues though he completely folds.

His opinion here was an absolutely abomination…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez

ninjapirate on March 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

“The Honey Badger don’t care…”

Akzed on March 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

The mandate is toast. It’s going down 5-4. What is at question is whether they will try to salvage any of the rest of the 2,700 page monstrosity. Going through THAT woul require a LOT of hard work, and would amount to a court “line item veto’ing” a law. I can’t see them doing that. Which means they will either strike down the WHOLE THING (and they have a convenient excuse to do so given the servability clause was taken out) or they say that everything BUT the mandate is Constitutional.

wildcat72 on March 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM

But either Scalia or Kennedy remarked that leaving anything in the bill that would be affected by lack of mandate would have consequences that Congress did NOT intend and THAT would be judicial activism.

MaggiePoo on March 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Didn’t finish my thought–screen refreshed and threw me off.

So if the mandate goes, the entire bill will go.

MaggiePoo on March 29, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Liberals suffer over Obamacare ruling!

Soundtrack courtesy of “Silence of the Tards”

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Forgive me if this professor’s credibility does not impress me.
Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM

You can’t blame the professon because the law school admissions committee will open the door for anyone who can get through undergrad and shows a propensity for uber-liberal activism.

tommyboy on March 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

But either Scalia or Kennedy remarked that leaving anything in the bill that would be affected by lack of mandate would have consequences that Congress did NOT intend and THAT would be judicial activism.

MaggiePoo on March 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

There’s a lot of that going around these days

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM

“Why won’t dogs eat this dog food? We need new marketing!”
Akzed on March 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Yep, them Justices are sharp. They can recognize a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

tommyboy on March 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I think Kennedy will be ok on the mandate. He’s usually ok for issues like this

You seem to be forgetting the Kelo immenent domain case where Kennedy’s concurrance was the 5th vote for that unbelievable government power grab. It pretty much rewrote the “takings clause” of the constitution. Anthony is a slippery one.

tommyboy on March 29, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Want to really get a liberals knickers in a twist? Tell him that Bush’s Solicitor General cleaned Obama’s Solicitor General’s clock for all to hear!

txmomof6 on March 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Can Pelosi “deem” the SCOTUS ruling to have approved of the mandate?

PappyD61 on March 29, 2012 at 1:59 PM

My, oh my, she thought she knew how to arrange things
She set it up so well, so carefully
Ain’t it funny how her cram down didn’t change things
She’s still the same old shrew she used to be.

She can’t hide her deemin’ eyes
And her smile is a thin disguise
You’d think by now more folks would realize
There ain’t no way to hide her deemin’ eyes.

She can’t hide her deemin’ eyes.

Barnestormer on March 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Even if Obamacare is thrown out, this is a minor setback to the left. They are already plotting their next move.

If Obamacare is overturned, the conservatives will say “Whew ! I’m glad this fight is over”, and then they’ll flop on the couch or go for a stroll or some target practice. In the meantime, the left will come charging up the hill as soon as the right relaxes for one second. It’s already being planned.

The long march continues, and if overturned, this would simply be a minor setback. The inexorable end of social medicine is coming, because we have bought into some many lies, such as
- medical care is a right
- health insurance is nothing of the sort, there’s no risk involved
- employers spend vast amount of time of $$$ on something that should not managed at home

Plus, the organized minority always beat the silent majority, regardless of what is “right”. Even the Tea Party ultimately won’t make a difference because they assume a moral foundation and act accordingly. Not so on the left.

(reading Confrontational Politics by H.L. Richardson, badly summarized above).

williampeck1958 on March 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM

You know, if I were to write a horrible and intrusive healthcare law, it would look a lot like Obamacare.

HoosierStateofMind on March 29, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I also will not celebrate until I see the SCOTUS decision. There’s too many times that the Obama administration has been able to pull the unbelievable……starting with ignoring the Black Panther’s poll intimidation and the campaign fund raising on the Internet without any checks or balances.

We all can blatantly see the unconstitutionality of this law but that doesn’t mean a judge won’t die in a federal park, resign or go missing before any decision is rendered.

Rush said today that a judge told him last night that the question regarding severability depends on the question: “Would Congress have passed this law without the unconstitutional part (the individual mandate)? And of course the answer is “no” since they would have had no way to pay for it and paying for it was the whole sale of passage (even though they had to dick with the numbers to even pretend it was paid for).

What’s sad is that when the majority of Americans don’t want it and see it as unconstitutional, we still have to wait for 9 people to decide.

katablog.com on March 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I’ve been holding my breath over this since Obama was elected. If this whole fiasco is put in the round file, I’m going to finally exhale and find some very creative ways to celebrate.

parteagirl on March 29, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Win or lose, I’m in!

teejk on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I don’t see how they could leave everything except the mandate intact without going through the rest of it. There’s an awful lot of discretion given to the HHS Secretary and she has already trampled on the First Amendment with the contraception mandate. That mandate should have to be rule unconstitutional as well as the main mandate.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The court may only strike down the mandate, but since congress removed the severability clause (it was in an earlier version, and purposefully removed), then if one part is found unconstitutional, they the whole bill goes in the dumpster. The SCOTUS doesn’t need to bother reading the 2700 pages, pull the keystone and it’s all history.

Oh, and it may be a 6-3 decision. Apparently the Wise Latina is not thrilled with the law, either (the headline is ambiguous, but the story seems clear).

iurockhead on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

in the next two months Obamacare will continue to do damage.

williampeck1958 on March 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM

“if you read some of the law professors that are writing in places like Salon today. They were unprepared for it, even though they should know better.”

How can they know any better? They’ve been blinded for decades by their own failed ideology.

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

It’s a variation on the old liberal post-election article -”How could X (R) have won, I don’t know a single person that voted for him”.

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Great interview Capt. Ed…

He seems to not want to make an assumption on big businesses… But I wish u would of followed up and got his view on the businesses that where able to get waivers… After the mandate the next big problem I have with ORomneyCare are the payoff’s aka waivers for big businesses & unions & some States…

This will be decided tomorrow… And will know what that decision will be in June..

Y314K on March 30, 2012 at 12:47 AM