SCOTUS to hear arguments over Obamacare

[il Padrino Ute]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...099414,00.html

[il Padrino Ute]

It would seem that Kagan should recuse herself from hearing these arguments:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...simply-amazing

[Jacob]

This is an interesting standard:

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

I'm sure Kagan made a statement, while employed by the federal government, that Obamacare and the mandate were perfectly constitutional. That would seem to voilate the above standard. Should it matter whether she was making the statement merely as an advocate for her employer (the government) or whether it was her own opinion? I'd say no, based on the above quote. She gave her opinion on the matter while she was employed by the government.
I don't find the emails quoted in the article very damning, but I'm assuming she made stronger statements as to the constitutionality in her official capacity.

[il Padrino Ute]

Wouldn't her role as Solicitor General be to defend the constitutionality of US law?

[Jacob]

Wouldn't her role as Solicitor General be to defend the constitutionality of US law?

Not according to her. She refused to defend the constitutionality of laws in other cases.

[il Padrino Ute]

Not according to her. She refused to defend the constitutionality of laws in other cases.

Thanks for that info. I didn't know that.

Still, as you quoted from the article, 28 USC 455 states that a judge must recuse. I suppose that it's best to make sure that there is no partiality, eh?

I'm unapologetic about wanting to see Obamacare repealed, let alone overturned, so I'm hoping she does the right thing and recuses. I was just curious to get others' thoughts on the court hearing the arguments and anything else that relates to the upcoming hearings, which is why I posted this about Kagan.

[Jacob]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/11/16...ccoli-test.xml

Wow, talk about your straw man. You would thinkthat a harvard law professor could at least be bothered to understand the opposing viewpoint. Especially since that view is likely held by at least four supreme court justices.

[il Padrino Ute]

George Will:

[RobinFinderson]

I think that the irony of the SCOTUS shooting this down to the fanfare of the GOP would be that it would take the last semi-free-market option for universal health care off the table, and would leave only socialized medicine options behind.

I actually agree with the GOP argument about the mandate, and thought that it might be the undoing of the law from the beginning. But we will never get to universal coverage without a mandate, so if it proves to be unconstitutional, then we have to look to something that IS constitutional -- Medicare.

I heard an NPR speaker point out that something like Obamacare was actually proposed at the federal level by a Republican as a way to undermine Hillarycare back in the 90's. That Republican idea came up as Romneycare at the state level, and then reemerged at the federal level as Obamacare.

[Goatnapper'96]

I think that the irony of the SCOTUS shooting this down to the fanfare of the GOP would be that it would take the last semi-free-market option for universal health care off the table, and would leave only socialized medicine options behind.

I actually agree with the GOP argument about the mandate, and thought that it might be the undoing of the law from the beginning. But we will never get to universal coverage without a mandate, so if it proves to be unconstitutional, then we have to look to something that IS constitutional -- Medicare.

I heard an NPR speaker point out that something like Obamacare was actually proposed at the federal level by a Republican as a way to undermine Hillarycare back in the 90's. That Republican idea came up as Romneycare at the state level, and then reemerged at the federal level as Obamacare.

I agree...but it is heading in that direction regardless. If we are unable to get control of our cost of health care it is inevitable that we will end up with socialized medicine as a basic provider. There will be rationing and means testing and my guess is those with more means will buy additional health insurance on top of the basic government provided health care.

But it will be entertaining if the SCOTUS does overturn the individual mandate. YOU JUST CAN'T CALL IT A TAX!

[Moliere]

Why are liberals so beholden to Obamacare? Do they forget the history of how it came to be? The current law would likely have never become law if Kennedy hadnt died when he did since Scott Brwon's election basically made it impossible for the senate to contemplate passing some other model. Essentially we got stuck with a middle of the road solution that wasn't liked by the Dems and was detested by the GOP.

Both parties should be hoping the mandate is repealed so we can find a better solution.

[pellegrino]

Why are liberals so beholden to Obamacare? Do they forget the history of how it came to be? The current law would likely have never become law if Kennedy hadnt died when he did since Scott Brwon's election basically made it impossible for the senate to contemplate passing some other model. Essentially we got stuck with a middle of the road solution that wasn't liked by the Dems and was detested by the GOP.

Both parties should be hoping the mandate is repealed so we can find a better solution.

Besides killing Bin Laden, it's the only thing Obama can say he accomplished.

[Moliere]

Besides killing Bin Laden, it's the only thing Obama can say he accomplished.

Obama has actually done a lot, but maybe you are just saying those are the only things to which he'd admit to accomplishing

[All-American]

I think that the irony of the SCOTUS shooting this down to the fanfare of the GOP would be that it would take the last semi-free-market option for universal health care off the table, and would leave only socialized medicine options behind.

I actually agree with the GOP argument about the mandate, and thought that it might be the undoing of the law from the beginning. But we will never get to universal coverage without a mandate, so if it proves to be unconstitutional, then we have to look to something that IS constitutional -- Medicare.

I heard an NPR speaker point out that something like Obamacare was actually proposed at the federal level by a Republican as a way to undermine Hillarycare back in the 90's. That Republican idea came up as Romneycare at the state level, and then reemerged at the federal level as Obamacare.

Overturning this particular law would hardly take the option off the table. You can do just about the same thing by enacting a general tax and then giving credits to people with health insurance. As far as I can tell, there are no constitutional problems with such an exercise of congressional taxing and spending powers.

The fact that the law is structured as an exercise of power pursuant to the commerce clause instead of Congress's power to tax and spend surprised me from the beginning. They wanted to be able to say that the act would not raise taxes, and so they have gone to great lengths to insist instead that the commerce clause gives Congress the power to compel purchase.