Topic: SCOTUS 2012: The Grand Finale

[Libertas]

Oh Rhett Libertas, sometimes you can be so eloquent.

Thanks...Scarlett.   

[Libertas]

Another interesting take on this is the long trail of abuses we've suffered by leftists first using a pry bar to expand the Commerce Clause, then with ObamaCare driving a fully-loaded semi through the darn thing!

Via HotAir -

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/18/new-scalia-book-landmark-supreme-court-decision-in-1942-expanded-commerce-clause-beyond-all-reason/

Things not looking good for ObamaCare...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/in-scalias-new-book-hints-of-health-ruling.html?_r=1

...but I sure would love to see this entire Commerce Clause issue tackled and the Wicker ruling blown away!

Back to HotAir -

Anyway, about that atomic bomb. It’s not breaking news that Scalia is leaning hard against ObamaCare’s mandate: He was the most vocal opponent of the statute during oral arguments, at one point lecturing Obama’s hapless Solicitor General Donald Verrilli about enumerated powers. His vote to strike it down seems a foregone conclusion. What’s more tantalizing, per the passage in his book about Wickard, is the possibility that he might call for the Court to more broadly revisit its Commerce Clause jurisprudence starting with the Roosevelt-era cases that established the precedent that Congress’s commerce power is more or less limitless. Which brings us to the atomic bomb scenario: How many justices would join him on that? It’s no stretch to think Thomas might. What about Alito and Roberts? If five justices signed onto the idea of overturning Wickard, the scope of federal regulatory power would contract dramatically. It would be a true judicial earthquake, with aftershocks far beyond health care.

Bomb away!

I hope Kennedy and the other four can gut this atrocity called ObamaCare and rip apart Wicker.  I hope Obama's threats anger those 5 and bite lib's hard in the ass!

Ending Wicker would rollback so much governmental overreach...we could end so much tyranny in one fell swoop!

                      

[trapeze]

This decision could be announced tomorrow (according to a story up on Drudge at the moment). It must be decided before the end of business on next Thursday because that's when the court adjourns for the year.

Of course, the AZ immigration decision will also come down between now and then.

I think it's time to rename this thread based on what might be rather momentous things about to hit the fan.

So...without further ado...

[charlesoakwood]

« on: September 27, 2011, 07:31:10 AM »
Re: Obama Regime Skipping 11th, Wants to Take ObamaCare Case to Supreme's
Posted by: Libertas

« Today [June 20, 2012] at 09:22:59 PM »
Posted by: trapeze
SCOTUS 2012: The Grand Finale

We've all be waiting, this is the opening chorus of the first act.
May we all play our parts well and may God be with SCOTUS,
us and the USA.

[trapeze]

Here's a teaser for tomorrow:

A survey of 56 legal insiders predicts that the Supreme Court will strike down the key part of President Obama's health care law.

Oral arguments in March persuaded a group of attorneys and former clerks that the justices will kill the individual mandate, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine, according to the survey by Purple Insights.

"In March, our experts believed that likelihood (of an overturn) stood at 35%," said a memo from Doug Usher of Purple Insights. "After hearing the oral arguments and the justices' questioning, our experts now place that probability at 57%."

[Pandora]

They need to kill the thing in its entirety; killing just the mandate isn't enough.  I'm TELLING y'all.

[Glock32]

I'm weary of fundamental liberties seeming to always come down to what sort of mood one particular USSC Justice happens to be in. That's not how things are supposed to be.

The Commerce Clause, or more specifically the...shall we say generous...interpretations of it, needs to be put back in its cage. If it were as broad in scope and authority as the Left has claimed since FDR, then why would the Framers have ever bothered to put anything else in the Constitution? It's obvious on its face that the Commerce Clause was never intended to justify all these overreaches.

[Libertas]

Agreed G, which is why I would like to see Wicker overturned.  But, back to the rely on the whims of the Supreme's...

 

For AZ and ObamaCare and everything, where is Kennedy?

Will Kennedy be a hero or a villian? 

 

Links on AZ & OC cases -

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE85I07820120619

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-may-release-healthcare-verdict-thursday-20120620,0,4104967.story

Won't know till the 28th?     Oh, wait, what am I thinking?  This is DC, aka Leakville.

[trapeze]

Yep, we have until Monday or Thursday to speculate some more. Sort of like, "Who shot J.R?" except with real life implications.

[charlesoakwood]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/22/obama_trips_at_campaign_event_in_tampa.html

[trapeze]

LINK

A new poll of 56 former Supreme Court clerks finds that 57 percent think the individual mandate will be overturned. That’s a 22-point jump from the last time the same group of clerks was surveyed, right before oral arguments. Back then, 35 percent thought the court would toss out the required purchase of health insurance.

Most of the clerks found the Supreme Court’s questioning to be more skeptical than they had expected. As one clerk put it to Purple Strategies’ Doug Usher, who conducted the research, “I feel like a dope, because I was one of those who predicted that the Court would uphold the statute by a lopsided majority…it now appears pretty likely that this prediction was way off.”

[trapeze]

The four likely scenarios.

[Libertas]

Only #4 is acceptable.

[BMG]

LINK

Conservatives wanted the White House to stop spending on the health care law until the Supreme Court rules on whether it's constitutional.

But the administration has forged ahead, spending at least $2.7 billion since oral arguments in the case ended on March 28. That's more than double the amount that was handed out in the three-month period leading up to the arguments, according to a POLITICO review of funding announcements from the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS is being disingenuous. They know as well as we do that the justices read the newspapers as closely as anyone. The sudden increase in spending is a gambit - an appeal to the practical side of the justices who may see spending billions on a government program as a good reason not to strike down the entire law.

SCOTUS may not do that anyway. But HHS is pulling out all the stops to convince the court that fooling with Obamacare would be an expensive proposition.

[Libertas]

Yeah...I got their stops raght heeah!

 

[trapeze]

And the winner is...

(probably not going to be announced today.)

[trapeze]

Two rulings so far.

One denying life in prison without possibility of parole for juveniles and the other affirming the Citizens United case against limits in corporate campaign spending...this time as it applies to state laws.

[trapeze]

Key part of AZ law upheld.

No O'BongoCare ruling today.

Prepare for MFM theme, "Another bad week for O'Bongo."

[IronDioPriest]

At what point does an endless string of "bad weeks" become a "bad presidency" to these clowns?

[trapeze]

AZ opinion pdf file.