Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare

posted at 9:26 pm on June 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via the Examiner, I’ve been looking for tea leaves for you all day but this, unfortunately, is the best I can do. I don’t even regard it as tea leaves: I think Tribe is just pre-spinning the outcome so that, if the mandate is struck down, he can call Roberts a disappointment who betrayed his education in a fit of ideological pique, etc etc etc. But we’re starving for insight and this is, in its own lame way, an insight into Roberts’s thinking. As is this:

Eastman, a critic of the health care law, said he wouldn’t be surprised to see Roberts side with the Obama administration and uphold the law. “He’s a creature of the Washington administrative state. That’s his background,” the professor said, noting that Roberts has spent almost his entire professional life in Washington.

Scalia’s background is Beltway-heavy too yet his vote against ObamaCare seems a fait accompli.

More unconvincing tea leaves? Okay, how about the idea that Roberts’s vote in the Arizona case with Kennedy and the liberals presages a similar outcome on ObamaCare?

What the Arizona compromise will augur for the most closely watched case of the term is anyone’s guess. Yet the justices’ evident search for common ground in the immigration ruling and a few other cases this term could portend a healthcare decision that does not predictably cleave along political lines…

Overall, the judgment was modest, the tone cautious. It underscored the federal role in regulating immigration and largely rejected the effort by Arizona – and, by extension, several other states – to institute sweeping measures to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

The justices’ regard for national authority on dilemmas that cut across state boundaries could end up echoing in the healthcare ruling.

“Both problems transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own,” Duke University law professor Neil Siegel said, stressing that he did not want to predict how the court would rule on Thursday.

Jeffrey Rosen is pushing this line too over at TNR but you could just as easily argue that Roberts and Kennedy threw the left a bone in the Arizona ruling because they’re ready to tear their hearts out with O-Care. A party-line conservative majority on immigration on top of a party-line conservative majority on ObamaCare would have handed liberals a double-barreled weapon in arguing that the Roberts Court is hopelessly politicized. They’ll still argue that if they lose on O-Care, of course, but their point will be weakened because of the Arizona case.

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


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 3

C’mon Thursday…

OmahaConservative on June 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

Because Mall Cop snuck away to make a call to TFGRP about the decision.

Bishop on June 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM

allah’s speculation is right. Tribe is giving himself room to cut the former pupil loose. Liberals need uniformity.

ted c on June 26, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Well..
Of course he said that…

Remember back in the day when there was this super computer that would tell ya what NFL team would make it to the super bowl?

Why isn’t it around today?

That’s right…

Electrongod on June 26, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Well that settles it then, Roberts will definitively vote to overturn. Always assume the opposite of what a fevered lib like Tribe says.

mustng66 on June 26, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Dude, I’m nauseous!

aquaviva on June 26, 2012 at 9:31 PM

You can uphold the law all u want SCOTUS, I ain’t buying health insurance. This isn’t the USSR you friggin dopes.

sbvft contributor on June 26, 2012 at 9:31 PM

I hope the next thing I’m required to buy is a gun, so I can support my militia.

Wander on June 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Obama would not have given the Supremes the finger yesterday if he thought the mandate had any chance of survival.

Scalia’s pique was because he wanted the whole statute overturned and only the mandate (plus other provisions perhaps) will be ruled unconstitutional.

Scalia did the same thing w O’Connor when she watered down Roe but refused to throw it out.

matthew8787 on June 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare

….YOU’RE TRYING TO GET ME TO PUKE ON MY KEYBOAD AND MONITOR!…aren’t you?

KOOLAID2 on June 26, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

Because he is either trying get mas much mileage out of it because he knows it will be upheld and lying or the Kalgan goblin waddled her way to the iPhone and text him that it really is dead

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM

In the Arizona case Roberts was on firmer constitutional ground – defending the borders is traditionally federal responsibility, even if that’s no longer taken seriously. Obamacare would expand federal authority in unprecedented ways. So I don’t know that you can read his vote on the second from his vote on the first.

Waggoner on June 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I hope the next thing I’m required to buy is a gun, so I can support my militia.

Wander on June 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM

this^

wheelgun on June 26, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Sorry but again from Reason.com

As I explain in my July cover story on the ObamaCare legal challenge, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli suggested that the Supreme Court would be guilty of conservative judicial activism if it nullified the individual mandate, Roberts immediately swatted away the idea. Then a few minutes later he brought the issue up again, this time accusing the federal government of being the ones seeking an activist ruling. “It would be going back to Lochner if we were put in the position of saying, no, you can use your commerce power to regulate insurance, but you can’t use your commerce power to regulate this market in other ways,” Roberts said. “I think that would be a very significant intrusion by the Court into Congress’ power.”

Lochner refers of course to the 1905 decision where the Supreme Court struck down a state working hours regulation for violating the unenumerated right to liberty of contract. It’s a case that continues to stand as a symbol of judicial activism for many legal thinkers on both the left and right, including Roberts. So by throwing that controversial ruling back in the government’s face, Roberts offered what could turn out to be a preemptive counter-attack to the inevitable charge of judicial activism that will follow in the wake of a decision invalidating the individual mandate. If Roberts does vote against ObamaCare, I wouldn’t be surprised if he employed this very argument.

CW on June 26, 2012 at 9:35 PM

So that means that Darth vader Ginsburg is going to deliver the dissenting opinion which is to overturn? really? I mean really?

sandee on June 26, 2012 at 9:35 PM

My Grandfather told me about the days when the Supreme Court followed the Constitution. I can’t believe we live in a time when they need to offset opinions to appease this one or that one. I’ll be glad when this Earth Age is over!

Tbone McGraw on June 26, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Scalia did the same thing w O’Connor when she watered down Roe but refused to throw it out.

matthew8787 on June 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Kennedy was supposed to be the fifth vote to overturn Roe, but then O’Connor and Souter got to him, and got him to flip.

Wethal on June 26, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I still think it is going to be something of an artful dodge by Roberts. He will rule that Congress can impose an individual requirement to pay for health insurance, but not under the Commerce Clause as is written in PPACA. He will tell Congress how to fix the bill to make it constitutional, by making it an “insurance tax” that Congress can then appropriate to either a government-run insurance program or to private companies. Of course, he knows that this Congress has no intention of fixing it, but that isn’t his problem.

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 9:36 PM

These are the same liberal idiots who seemed surprised that the Justices would even dare question the Constitutionality of the individual mandate. They don’t have a very good track record.

WordsMatter on June 26, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

If Kagan didn’t have the integrity to recuse herself, then I don’t see how she would have the integrity to keep the lid on this.

INC on June 26, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

Because he is either trying get mas much mileage out of it because he knows it will be upheld and lying or the Kalgan goblin waddled her way to the iPhone and text him that it really is dead

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Sure, if it were 2 months ago when he started doing it. But when donors just have to wait 48 hours to find out? Why wouldn’t they then wait to write the check till they know for sure? I do think Kagan might have blabbed, or hinted.

Waggoner on June 26, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Some tea leaves aren’t as smart as others.

Pork-Chop on June 26, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Please God, save this country and protect your inheritance.

deimos on June 26, 2012 at 9:39 PM

If Roberts doesn’t strike this down, he’s dead to me.

Blake on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Kelo

tommy-t on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

This is the same Larry Tribe who wrote that unfortunate (for Tribe one it was leaked), letter to Obama saying Obama shouldn’t nominate Sotomayor, as “Neither Steve Breyer nor Ruth Ginsburg has much of a purchase on Tony Kennedy’s mind,” and neither would Sotomayor. Tribe wanted Kagan to go first.

Wethal on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

If he hasn’t been tipped off that at least the mandate is gone I’d be shocked.

If it is not gone someone would have tipped him off by now that he need not talk about it as if it might be.

Presidents always express total unequivocal confidence a decision will go their way until the decision is announced. But then, The One does not behave, in so many, many ways, like previous Presidents.

farsighted on June 26, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Pork-Chop on June 26, 2012 at 9:39 PM

There’s an article on the ‘pay’ side of the Financial Times that has gotten a ‘heads-up’ that one of Obozo’s new themes for the election is

He’s running against the Supreme Court.

Make of that what you will…

CPT. Charles on June 26, 2012 at 9:42 PM

I wish every time a pundit or analyst showed up on TV with a prediction his record on predictions would be displayed in a large graphic on the right side of the screen. They never get called on it when they’re wrong.

Dongemaharu on June 26, 2012 at 9:42 PM

We will find out soon. No use at speculating, although it is fun.

terryannonline on June 26, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Ginsburg the majority, Roberts the dissent?

Ginsburg, Soto, Kagan, Breyer, Kennedy.

Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas.

Roberts offers an AZ-type opinion that says “file a lawsuit at first sight”?

Did Scalia flip out yesterday, because AZ’s ruling was the best the original intent crowd is going to get?

budfox on June 26, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Here is why the majority will strike down the mandate:

215 Economists rip Obamacare, argument is basis for 11th Circuit ruling to strike down the mandate

Justice Alito mentioned some of the data from this brief during oral arguments.

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I wish every time a pundit or analyst showed up on TV with a prediction his record on predictions would be displayed in a large graphic on the right side of the screen. They never get called on it when they’re wrong.

Dongemaharu on June 26, 2012 at 9:42 PM

That would leave bill kristol 0 – 42

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM

The suspense is killing me.

SparkPlug on June 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM

I’m still cautiously optimistic, but, damn, I wish tomorrow was Thursday.

Bitter Clinger on June 26, 2012 at 9:47 PM

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I wouldn’t mind that. Actually, I just want the bill, or at least the core of it, thrown out. I’m not fussy how they do it. Well, in my dreams we’d have a majority opinion by Scalia, but since that is not happening then I think our best shot is some kind of limited victory. But I’ll take it.

jwolf on June 26, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Tribe wanted Kagan to go first.

Wethal on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Why did he think that Kagan would have a “purchase on (Kennedy’s) mind”?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2012 at 9:47 PM

What happened to Tribe? He’s a skinny man now!

thebrokenrattle on June 26, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Tribe wanted Kagan to go first.

Wethal on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Why did he think that Kagan would have a “purchase on (Kennedy’s) mind”?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Because she’s hot

Hahahaha

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Question to the lawyers or anyone who stayed at a Holiday Inn last night-

Is it possible that the side that supports it will use Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905 to uphold the whole thing?

batterup on June 26, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Obama would not have given the Supremes the finger yesterday if he thought the mandate had any chance of survival.

matthew8787 on June 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Did Obama scratch his cheek with his middle finger while talking about the court during a speech again? Oh, what a jokester.

mapper on June 26, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I still think it is going to be something of an artful dodge by Roberts. He will rule that Congress can impose an individual requirement to pay for health insurance, but not under the Commerce Clause as is written in PPACA. He will tell Congress how to fix the bill to make it constitutional, by making it an “insurance tax” that Congress can then appropriate to either a government-run insurance program or to private companies. Of course, he knows that this Congress has no intention of fixing it, but that isn’t his problem.

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Not sure I follow this. What you’re describing still sounds like a mandate to me.

Bitter Clinger on June 26, 2012 at 9:51 PM

The suspense is killing me.

SparkPlug on June 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Just wait until 0bamacare gets a hold of ya.

SouthernGent on June 26, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Logically, I think the mandate is gone…

…but I keep going back to Ginsburg comment about the “sharp disagreements”. We keep thinking Scalia.

What if it was Roberts v Breyer, over who could sway Kennedy?

What if Kennedy flipped, and Roberts best hope is to undermine the majority opinion in his dissent?

I’m placing my money on this outcome now.

Barry gets a hollowed out victory that grounds 0Care in instant lawsuits, and makes the ’12 election 100% about stopping – or forcing through – its implementation.

So, instead of clarity, we now get five months of Alinsky tactics in its purest form.

…and that’s before we get to the possibility of him losing, and wtf 0 will do with his lame-duck time…

…Yay…

budfox on June 26, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I’m so sick of tea leaves. Can’t you guys find somebody who reads coffee grounds?

stukinIL4now on June 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM

If the mandate is upheld we become chained to the “state” and thus have no rights.

With this in mind I cannot see how Roberts uphold s the mandate.

What’s going to be fun is reading the Opinions and what the justifications were used to their legal conclusions.

CodaUPB on June 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I hope you’re right. 0Care with a tax mandate will stop this thing cold.

budfox on June 26, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

One dirty hand washes the other, then they rub their faces.

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Kelo

tommy-t on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

MUCH different court today then for that ruling!

clement on June 26, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Why did he think that Kagan would have a “purchase on (Kennedy’s) mind”?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Because Kagan might be a lefty ideologue, but she’s a smart one.

Sotomayor, on the other hand, was not the brightest bulb on the circuit court. If she had been a Caucasian male instead of a wise Latina, she might never have gotten beyond the district court.

Wethal on June 26, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Bitter Clinger on June 26, 2012 at 9:51 PM

It’s a strikedown, but not one that says “you can never ever do this,” just “you can’t do it the way you did it here and for the reasons you argued to us.”

It’s not disputable that Congress can levy a tax on individuals for pretty much any purpose it wants, and if they had done that in this law it would not have even been challenged.

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 9:59 PM

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Maybe. He might tell them they cannot use the Commerce Clause but I don’t think Roberts has to actually tell them they could do it using the tax code.

I think there are any number of ways to structure taxes to penalize people who do not buy health insurance.

IIRC, they deliberately did not do it that way for political reasons, to avoid charges they were creating a new tax, or something like that. Also, IIRC, during oral arguments the issue of whether or not the mandate penalty was a tax or not was discussed. The SG was told they cannot call it a tax now when they called it something else during the legislative process.

farsighted on June 26, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare

I suppose. As far as an upside to 0 hinting defeat. Lowered expectations, so a win blows new wind into his campaigners sails? Enhance the boost?

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

SOP for fundraising. Wring every last drop out of a Possible Future Scary Event.

I don’t think this even qualifies as a tea leaf. Obama would be stupid to play it any other way.

Missy on June 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM

rockmom, that article you posted is very enlightening.

Voter from WA State on June 26, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Thanks, I don’t know why it has not received more attention on this and other blogs. It was cited numerous times in the 11th Circuit ruling which struck down the mandate. It completely blows the government’s case out of the water.

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM

I’ll be glad when this Earth Age is over!

Tbone McGraw on June 26, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I’m slowly but surely coming around to that sentiment.

Cleombrotus on June 26, 2012 at 10:03 PM

I would expect to see Ginsburg a little more pissed off if the mandate is going down, but she was giddy in that recent press appearance. Not a good sign, particularly coupled with my strong belief that Roberts is an inside-the-beltway guy who wants to be lauded by the media. I am praying that they shoot it down, but feeling a lot less confident about it lately. Damn tea leaves!

Rational Thought on June 26, 2012 at 10:03 PM

On the other hand, if they ruled on AZ as they did and uphold Deathcare, we are totally screwed and time to plan an exit strategy several years from now.

bluemarlin on June 26, 2012 at 10:04 PM

IF IT’S UPHELD, THEN WE VOTE ROMNEY/JINDAL (AND IF IT’S UPHELD THEN I GUARANTEE IT WILL BE JINDAL) AND THEY WILL REPEAL.

reliapundit on June 26, 2012 at 10:04 PM

If Kagan didn’t have the integrity to recuse herself, then I don’t see how she would have the integrity to keep the lid on this.

INC on June 26, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Yep.

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM

IIRC, they deliberately did not do it that way for political reasons, to avoid charges they were creating a new tax, or something like that. Also, IIRC, during oral arguments the issue of whether or not the mandate penalty was a tax or not was discussed. The SG was told they cannot call it a tax now when they called it something else during the legislative process.

farsighted on June 26, 2012 at 10:00 PM

They didn’t make it a tax because it would have been a giant new tax on the middle class, and in 2009 President Obama still seemed pretty interested in not breaking his campaign promises on that. Also, the revenue and its use would have had to be scored by the CBO and it would have increased the total cost of the bill to well over the magic number of $1 trillion, and there would go the votes of the Blue Dogs.

A lot of magical thinking went into this bill. I do hope the Court gets at least some of it back to Earth.

rockmom on June 26, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Expect Obama to pass EO stating at least one supreme court judge should be an illegal immigrant, since they make up over 10% of our population. Then he’ll decree Roberts as odd man out.

fogw on June 26, 2012 at 10:07 PM

his is the same Larry Tribe who wrote that unfortunate (for Tribe one it was leaked), letter to Obama saying Obama shouldn’t nominate Sotomayor, as “Neither Steve Breyer nor Ruth Ginsburg has much of a purchase on Tony Kennedy’s mind,” and neither would Sotomayor. Tribe wanted Kagan to go first.

Wethal on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

What a dumb thing for any supposedly intelligent person to write. I’m sure Kennedy saw that and decided neither of those two would have any “purchase” on his mind.

Missy on June 26, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Any election results from New York? It was today, right?

JPeterman on June 26, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare

I think your former student is about to school you.

Scrappy on June 26, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

Because Mall Cop snuck away to make a call to TFGRP about the decision.

Bishop on June 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Ummm, yup….

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:12 PM

“Both problems transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own,” Duke University law professor Neil Siegel said, stressing that he did not want to predict how the court would rule on Thursday.

Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power…To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…To repel invasions…”

OK, so Naturalisation/Immigration are specifically mentioned, but let me look for anything pertaining to “problems (that) transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own”….hold on…

Article I, Section 10: No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

No, it talks about states’ borders, but nothing about “problems (that) transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own”….Oh, well, let’s see if it says anything about healthcare or forcing Americans to enter into third-party contracts for the provision/procurement of government-approved goods or services as a condition of good citizenship…just wait….

I didn’t want to just go on memory alone or my scanning eyes, so I used a word search. Nothing about healthcare or the Congress having the ability to use the Commerce Clause as a hook to “solve problems (that) transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own.” Nope. Nothing there.

Larry, don’t you have another book to plagiarise or something?

Resist We Much on June 26, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare

I think your former student is about to school you.

Scrappy on June 26, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Those who can (John Roberts) Do. Those who can’t (Lawrence Tribe) Teach.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:13 PM

That FT article could also be read as Obama victory spin. By this reading, he’s saying the Supremes recognized the country shouldn’t go “backwards” and be forced to “refight the healthcare battle”. He knows 2/3 of the people hate the bill, so this is as close as he can reasonably get to spiking the ball without driving Republicans and Independents into a complete frenzy as our blessed Republic delves into tyranny.

MTF on June 26, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I would say without prejudice that Chief Justice Roberts has eclipsed his former teacher by a long shot.

Bob's Kid on June 26, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Because Mall Cop snuck away to make a call to TFGRP about the decision.

Bishop on June 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM

..Bishop, this HG humor is going to fast & furious for me. Who’s “Mall Cop”?

The War Planner on June 26, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Tribe is still alive?

A few years ago, he claimed with a straight face that O’bama was “the best law student I ever had.”

But just before that, he had already claimed that a former female law student of his was the same thing.

T-

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM

That FT article could also be read as Obama victory spin. By this reading, he’s saying the Supremes recognized the country shouldn’t go “backwards” and be forced to “refight the healthcare battle”. He knows 2/3 of the people hate the bill, so this is as close as he can reasonably get to spiking the ball without driving Republicans and Independents into a complete frenzy as our blessed Republic delves into tyranny.

MTF on June 26, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I’m wondering that, too. I have no doubt — absolutely zero doubt — that Kagan told Obama a long, long time ago what the outcome would be. He should be more pissed off, much more hostile, like he usually is when something doesn’t go his way. I’m thinking that perhaps his comments today were a set-up for him to be able to say, “Well, thank God the Supreme Court listened to ME!” when they uphold the mandate. That was my first thought when I read them. He knows what the decision is — and he wants credit for it.

Rational Thought on June 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Uphelding Obamacare and striking the mandates are going to be two different opinions…
Yes they can certainly strike the mandates down and uphold the rest of Obamacare but for all intense and purposes Obamcare would be dead if this happens…
Mark my word if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandates and probably one or two more clauses but upheld the remaining of the law the White House spin and the liberal media spin would be “Great victory for Obama, Supreme court upheld law” and in small print “but they strike down the mandates”….

mnjg on June 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I am not a student of the law….but it seems to be a sign of how far we’ve strayed when we wring hands and chew fingernails over how the SCOTUS will rule when the Constitution spells out what we all believe to be truth. This abomination should be killed, but we don’t have faith that our faithful Constitution will prevail. We seem to be a lawless nation.

freedomfirst on June 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Because Mall Cop snuck away to make a call to TFGRP about the decision.

Bishop on June 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM

..Bishop, this HG humor is going to fast & furious for me. Who’s “Mall Cop”?

The War Planner on June 26, 2012 at 10:18 PM

ROTFLMAO… Elena Kagan. You have to see a picture of the guy who stared in Mall Cop and one of Elena Kagan, you get it then… ;p

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Those who can (John Roberts) Do. Those who can’t (Lawrence Tribe) Teach.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:13 PM

..does Lawrence Tribe own a leather bustier?

(It’s a running joke I have with myself.)

The War Planner on June 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Wethal on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Yes, and I have part of it!

“Bluntly put, she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is, and her reputation for being something of a bully could well make her liberal impulses backfire and simply add to the fire power of the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas wing of the Court on issues like those involved in the voting rights case argued last week and the Title VII case of the New Haven firefighters argued earlier, issues on which Kennedy will probably vote with Roberts despite Souter’s influence but on which I don’t regard Kennedy as a lost cause for the decade or so that he is likely to remain on the Court.”

Ouch!

Resist We Much on June 26, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Arizona immigration case showed that the Supreme Court upholding and striking down clauses in the same law with different votes on different clauses… The same would happen to Obamacare. Mandates would most probably be striken down and possibly one or two more clauses… The rest of the law would be uphled… But it is would be totally meaningless because the law cannot survive without the mandates…

mnjg on June 26, 2012 at 10:22 PM

ROTFLMAO… Elena Kagan. You have to see a picture of the guy who starred in Mall Cop and one of Elena Kagan, you get it then… ;p

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM

..Thanks for the help, Walker! It’s truly humorous!

Wonder if Kagan owns a leather bustier?

The War Planner on June 26, 2012 at 10:22 PM

If Roberts doesn’t strike this down, he’s dead to me.

Blake on June 26, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Me, too. If Roberts is concerned about the reputation of “his court” as folks say he is, I really, really hope he has a sense of how much Americans despise this mandate. My little old mother today, 75 years old, said, “If they don’t vote this thing down, I’m done following politics, done voting, done with it all. There will be no point in participating ever again. Thank God I won’t be around to see what’s coming.”

It broke my heart.

Rational Thought on June 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM

We are governed by tyrannical forces…one person is deciding the freedom of a nation. How absurd. How dangerous. How cynical.

Whatever happened to the three coequal branches and the notion of checks and balances? I’m too naive. The last 3 1/2 years helped develop the cynic in me. I’m feeling Eeyorish tonight.

freedomfirst on June 26, 2012 at 10:26 PM

One thing that isn’t being discussed is that if the mandate alone is out and they push forward with this Obomination, Sebelious is going to regulate the insurance companies out of business in no time. How many time does it say that the “Sec. will”, in this law?

God Bless America!

paratisi on June 26, 2012 at 10:27 PM

He will rule that Congress can impose an individual requirement to pay for health insurance, but not under the Commerce Clause as is written in PPACA. He will tell Congress how to fix the bill to make it constitutional, by making it an “insurance tax” that Congress can then appropriate to either a government-run insurance program or to private companies.

It is NOT a tax. The Court, in City of New York v. Feiring, 313 U.S. 283 (1941), established a test to be utilised in making the determination of whether an assessment is a tax or a penalty has been described as a four-part test incorporating the following criteria:

(1) an involuntary pecuniary burden, regardless of name, laid upon individuals or property; and,

(2) imposed by, or under authority of the legislature; and,

(3) for public purposes, including the purposes of defraying expenses of government or undertakings authorised by it; and,

(4) under the police or taxing power of the state.

The individual mandate is NOT a tax. The Obama administration CANNOT make the argument that the FDR administration relied upon (Taxing and Spending powers) when it argued for the constitutionality of Social Security. In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), the Court said that Congress had the authority to tax income to provide for Social Security BECAUSE IT WAS A TAX PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not an arm of the Federal government; thus, paying premiums to it CANNOT be viewed as a form of taxation.

Basically, Roberts and the 4 Liberals, who were viciously against Citizens United, would be reduced to arguing that those big, mean, meanie health insurance corporations are not just people, but those big, mean, meanie health insurance corporations are part of the government of the United States of America.

Furthermore, the penalty that would be assessed was not raised in the funding (taxing) portion of the legislation nor is it called a tax. Lastly, Obama specifically and on camera said that THE MANDATE AND THE PENALTY WERE NOT TAXES.

Obamacare: Do Not Resuscitate

If Roberts were to find as you suggest, he wouldn’t be fit to serve as the new Judge Wapner on The People’s Court deciding cases involving which of the roommates have broken the oral agreement to clean up the dog poop.

Resist We Much on June 26, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Resist We Much on June 26, 2012 at 10:21 PM

While Kustice Scalia has already hinted that Wickard will play some role in the upcoming O-Care decision, what will be interesting to see is Thomas’s opinion. Thomas may well be one of the most brilliant and important jurist to sit on the SCOTUS in the last 100 years. Thomas is a Strict constructionist who has been maneuvering tirelessly to destroy the liberal influence of the SCOTUS.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:31 PM

..Thanks for the help, Walker! It’s truly humorous!

Wonder if Kagan owns a leather bustier?

The War Planner on June 26, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I don’t know, but I sure as he11 wouldn’t put money on her not owning a leather riding crop. :O

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Resist We Much on June 26, 2012 at 10:21 PM

While Kustice Scalia has already hinted that Wickard will play some role in the upcoming O-Care decision, what will be interesting to see is Thomas’s opinion. Thomas may well be one of the most brilliant and important jurist to sit on the SCOTUS in the last 100 years. Thomas is a Strict constructionist who has been maneuvering tirelessly to destroy the liberal influence of the SCOTUS.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Walker I need evidence of this, he sided with the libs on Arizona, and he was open to mandates in the oral arguments was he not?

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 10:34 PM

My little old mother today, 75 years old, said, “If they don’t vote this thing down, I’m done following politics, done voting, done with it all. There will be no point in participating ever again. Thank God I won’t be around to see what’s coming.”

It broke my heart.

Rational Thought on June 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM

..clearly the apple has not fallen too far from the tree in your case. I see where you get your rationality. What an amazing mom! How’d you like to trade for an in-the-tank-for-Obama Marin County hyper-lib mother?

The War Planner on June 26, 2012 at 10:34 PM

o/t

Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer: Some Dems Will Vote To Hold Holder In Contempt For Fast And Furious

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/26/hoyer-some-dems-will-vote-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-for-fast-and-furious/

Resist We Much on June 26, 2012 at 10:35 PM

..Thanks for the help, Walker! It’s truly humorous!

Wonder if Kagan owns a leather bustier?

The War Planner on June 26, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I don’t know, but I sure as he11 wouldn’t put money on her not owning a leather riding crop. :O

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Oh, and besides, I’m pretty sure Kagan is proof positive that the dinosaurs haven’t all died out yet, she’s definitely a Licalotapus… :p

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM

God forbid it gets upheld, but all is not lost. They passed it via reconciliation, we erase it in Jan. with the same process, presuming we take Cong+Pres., which I still am convinced it will be a landslide.

An interesting thought: give only ONE choice, would you rather see Indiv Mandate tossed (rest remains) or the complete docs. regarding Fast & Furious be released before the elections?

After Thurs., Mr. Issa’s stock could soar.

hillsoftx on June 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Tripe Tribe reminds me of the old saying:

“I taught him everything he knows and he still don’t know ‘nuthin.”

viking01 on June 26, 2012 at 10:38 PM

The danger: too much care about stare decisis.
Too little care about limited government and individual rights.

AshleyTKing on June 26, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Those who can (John Roberts) Do. Those who can’t (Lawrence Tribe) Teach.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:13 PM

And those who can’t teach plagiarize. The big mahatma.

de rigueur on June 26, 2012 at 10:40 PM

..clearly the apple has not fallen too far from the tree in your case. I see where you get your rationality. What an amazing mom! How’d you like to trade for an in-the-tank-for-Obama Marin County hyper-lib mother?

The War Planner on June 26, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Ha! I’ll have to pass. But I can offer you a democrat-voting retired public school teacher aunt who has been living in the lap of state pension luxury since the age of…54!

Rational Thought on June 26, 2012 at 10:40 PM

God forbid it gets upheld, but all is not lost. They passed it via reconciliation, we erase it in Jan. with the same process, presuming we take Cong+Pres., which I still am convinced it will be a landslide.

An interesting thought: give only ONE choice, would you rather see Indiv Mandate tossed (rest remains) or the complete docs. regarding Fast & Furious be released before the elections?

After Thurs., Mr. Issa’s stock could soar.

hillsoftx on June 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM

No it will never be repealed, that is a pipe dream and used to get people to go out and vote. Once it’s in the system it’s in. For the mandate if upheld, be ready for many mandates, toy think banning big gulps was a big deal wait till you see what comes down the pike

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Just curious, does SCOTUS announce in advance whether or not any of the Justices recused themselves, or is that only revealed when the Decision is made public?

For all we know, Kagan could do the ethical thing and recuse herself, and it could be an 8-vote final ruling like the one Monday.

Remember, she’s now a young SCOTUS Justice guaranteed for Life, unlike O’bama. She can rule for O’bamacare when one of O’bama’s daughters is elected President and rams it thru 20 years from now.

Standard Disclaimer: I don’t have a dog in this fight (O’bama gave NH an O’BonghitCare exemption to Buy Votes) but I hope the whole thing goes.

I have no doubt that SCOTUS will strike down the Mandate part, but if they leave the rest, it will end up entangling the Courts with endless useless litigating for another 10 years, long after O’bama has retired to French Frigate Shoals.

Best for the Court to toss the whole thing out and invite the various players to try again.

They’ll probably also admonish Congress to actually READ the bill they are enacting into Settled Science.

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare

And, I think that there is a reason why your eyes are brown.

kingsjester on June 26, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3