Justice Ginsburg suggests "sharp disagreement" over pending hot-button cases

[cal04]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/us/scotus-ginsburg-health-care/index.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is predicting "sharp disagreement" as the Supreme Court prepares by month's end to release some of its most-talked-about rulings, including the constitutionality of the health care law championed by President Obama.

(snip)
"No contest since the court invited new briefs and arguments in 'Citizens United' (a 2009-10 campaign finance spending case) has attracted more attention -- in the press, the academy," she said. "Some have described the controversy as unprecedented and they may be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, counter protests, going on outside the court while oral argument was under way inside."

She then explained-- with a dollop of humor-- the four issues the court was considering, including the main focus: the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which would require nearly all Americans to buy health insurance starting in 2014 or face a financial penalty.

"If the individual mandate, requiring the purchase of insurance or the payment of a penalty, if that is unconstitutional, must the entire act fall?" she said, then outlining another key question. "Or, may the mandate be chopped, like a head of broccoli, from the rest of the act?"

[elleng]

1. 'Press conferences and PRAYER CIRCLES!' LOVE her!

There will be 'sharp disagreements' among and with Congress. The Supremes themselves deal very nicely with their 'disagreements.' Listening to oral argument right now, on C-SPAN-2.

[juxtaposed]

2. if it fails, states will still move on their own. They will follow the Vermont Model

Maine and Massachusetts will jump on board with Vermont's Model and form a Co-op "Tri-State". Showing savings in the first few years. Next major US corporations will jump in line as major Canadian Companies have, the big 3 auto Companies in Canada want to shift to single payer

[Skip Intro]

3. Is that not a strong hint that the mandate will be found unconstitutional? nt

[jaysunb]

4. Not really

I fully expect the mandate will be upheld, albeit by a narrow 5-4 majority. It may be "sharply divided" because of unexpected support front an unlikely source. Just my .02.

[boxman15]

5. Not necessarily.

It means it's probably gonna be a 5-4 decision. Who knows which way it'll go?

I doubt it'll be upheld, but no one except the justices know for sure at this point.

[cthulu2016]

10. yes

[woo me with science]

12. It will be upheld, IMO.

The corporatists in both parties planned and prepared for this one very carefully.


They managed to mandate that...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002472947#post23


Wake the fuck up! WH: Individual mandate conceived of by the Heritage Foundation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512218

[elleng]

6. 'The court in the next two weeks

will rule separately on health care, Arizona's controversial immigration crackdown law, television broadcast indecency enforcement, and a federal law making it a crime to lie about earning high military honors.

Ginsburg called the court's frantic race to finish their remaining 15 or so rulings "flood season."

"As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending," she noted. "So it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after." . .

Ginsburg repeated what many at the court have long known when trying to speculate what the court will do, and when.

"At the Supreme Court, those who know don't talk," she said, smiling. "And those who talk don't know."'


------------------

Justice Ginsburg on C-SPAN2 at 2:50 a.m. edt; MAY be her discussion at this legal conference Friday night.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I don't understand how the fucking Commerce Clause can't accomodate the Mandate

when apparently the same Interstate Commerce Clause is broad enough to bust a cancer granny for smoking pot she grew herself, in her own home, never sold ("commerce&quot or taken across state lines ("interstate&quot

Unbefuckinglievable.

[elleng]

8. Decision hasn't been issued yet,

but to learn something about the workings of the Commerce Clause, you may want to listen to the arguments.
And to learn something about the Court, you may want to listen to Justice Ginsburg, who is now speaking, on C-SPAN2.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. I realize the decision hasn't been made yet. But I am familiar with the "reasoning" they used to

justify the commerce clause as rationale to throw a cancer patient in prison for growing her own pot.

Sorry, the idea that "someone could conceivably sell it, in a different state, and really the government doesn't need any justification at all to tell consenting adults what they can smoke in their own homes anyway" doesn't cut it. Not for me.

There seems to be a widespread apprehension that they will, indeed, use the commerce clause to overturn the mandate. In which case, I call bullshit, as have other observers, particularly in the context of the ham-fisted enabling of the government's misguided persecution of sick people who have the nerve to try to ease their symptoms by getting high.

[cthulu2016]

11. She kind of gives half the story away there

Whether the mandate is separable wouldn't have been a big topic of discussion if it weren't struck down.

[quaker bill]

13. Not necessarily so

because you get to the necessary clause. Do they invalidate all of a broadly constitutional act because of a controversy over an arguable single provision that is necessary to implement it? If so, does this cross into judicial activism?