ObamaCare, Tea-Leaves and a Prediction...

polifrog





Of the tea-leaves available for reading regarding ObamaCare only one truly stands out. That would the the administration's initial impetuous response to the Supreme Court hearings this spring. It is hard for me to believe that the court's veil of secrecy is tight enough to keep the administration in the dark regarding ObamaCare. 

Obama's initial reaction to court questions:

 I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.

That initial attack on the court speaks for itself.

That the administration has been willing to invest in building the framework for sustained attacks on the court further supports the reading that ObamaCare is going down as unconstitutional tomorrow.

Obama Starts His Anti-Supreme Court Campaign: Road testing the theme for the Fall:

Barack Obama suggested that any decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn his landmark healthcare law would send the country “backwards” and that Americans did not want to “re-fight” the battle over healthcare.

It was the first sign that beyond the White House’s staunch defence of the Affordable Care Act Mr Obama is prepared to use the law as a rallying cry on the campaign trail. It is a risky strategy: about half the country remains opposed to the legislation, although most voters like the consumer protections that are guaranteed under the law.

ObamaCare is going down...






out

So, How About a Boring List of "Unelected Officials" Appointed by Obama...

polifrog



Obama recently babbled something about "unelected officials" in reference to the Supreme Court.

How about a list of those unelected Czars appointed by Obama:



Is no one bothered by the use of the term Czar? On the other hand its use is very un-orwellian.





out

Reading Supreme Tea Leaves...

polifrog




Weekly Standard:

In fact, Obamacare's best proponents today weren't the solicitor general; they were Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

...

Ginsburg and Breyer made clear that they support the individual mandate; Elena Kagan was less effusive, but she seemed more or less supportive, too. On the other side there is Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts (who cast serious doubt on the government's attempt to define the market broadly or construct limiting principles on this new federal power), and Justice Samuel Alito (who pressed back very hard on the notion that the mandate is necessary to prevent the uninsured from shifting costs on to the general public). Justice Clarence Thomas was characteristically silent, although it is a bit hard to imagine him siding with the government, given his longstanding constitutional principles.

Kennedy, of course, remains in the middle. But for all of the talk that Roberts could ultimately provide a sixth vote in favor of Obamacare, another justice’s questions hinted that there could be a sixth vote in the other direction.

...it's impossible to say whether the Court will affirm the mandate or strike it down. Still, based on the tone of questioning alone, Obamacare's advocates ought to worry less about winning Roberts, and worry more about losing Sotomayor.

out

It is and it isn't or it was before it wasn't....

polifrog




Washington Examiner:

On the first day of oral arguments in the case challenging President Obama's national health care law, justices seemed skeptical that the individual mandate should be considered a tax -- one of the main consitutional defenses being offered for the law.

...

"This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the mandate.

Another liberal on the court, Justice Stephen Breyer, said of Congress's description of the fine for non-compliance with the mandate, "They called it a penalty and not a tax for a reason."

...

The Obama administration has to thread a difficult needle. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued today that the penalty for non-compliance with the mandate did not function as a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Tomorrow, he'll have to argue that it does operate as a tax, and thus is a constitutional exercise of the congressional power to levy taxes.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli whether he could point to another case in which courts identified something as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act while still ruling it was a constitutional exercise of taxing power. Verrilli could not name any. But he went on to explain that the government had identified a number of penalties that would fall into the same category, including three that concern alcohol and tobacco.

h/t Bubba





out

Is a Child Conceived Years After the Death of the Father Entitled to Benefits?

polifrog



National Partnership :

The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in a case that will decide whether children conceived through in vitro fertilization after a parent's death can receive Social Security benefits, NPR's "All Things Considered" reports (Totenberg, "All Things Considered," NPR, 3/19).

The Social Security Administration since 1939 has provided a benefit to the families of deceased wage earners. However, it is unclear whether benefits should be provided to children who were not yet conceived when the wage earner died (Women's Health Policy Report, 11/17/11).

They will not deny the benefits. It is for the children.

What of sperm donors and all their progeny?  I suspect there will be a rush to cash in on Dr. Jones.

But what of the impacts of this decision  on a slightly a different scenario?

Let's say a married couple amicably divorce dividing the totality of their assets equally.   Years later the woman visits the sperm bank where her half of her sperm from the previous marriage is housed and through the miracle of IVF eventually gives birth to the child of a man she has not seen in many years.  Can she sue and win child support from her previous husband, a man who has not seen  her for years?

I suspect the answer would be yes, as it would be genetically impossible for him to deny fatherhood and it would be for the children.  I suppose this could become another revenue stream for unscrupulous women.




out

A Supreme Court Docket Primer on Uncommon Knowledge...

polifrog



Growing up I never contemplated hearing discussions in which conservatism and libertarianism were the assumption. I not only still find it refreshing, but stunning that such discussion now take place.


Via powerline:








out