SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Publius1787, Mar 25, 2012.

  1. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.


    AUDIO FOR THE ANTI INJUNCTION ACT HEARD ON 3/26/2012 BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT CAN BE FOUND HERE




    1. This played on CSPAN yesterday morning and was very informative. It’s a debate between many lawyers who’ve argued the ACA on both sides. ( Supreme Court Health Care Argument Preview - C-SPAN Video Library )

    2. For those of you who want more mock trials and debates you can see the videos on this thread ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...e-and-a-preview-of-the-arguments-to-come.html ). Each of them is a separate debate among some of the greatest constitutional legal minds.

    3. For those of you who want to hear the oral arguments as soon as they are available, or wish to read all of the briefs and listen to all of the previous arguments, you can go here ( The Court and Health Care Reform | Oyez Today ).



    The following video is of Paul D. Clement among others who have argued for and against the ACA. Paul D. Clement will argue the case tommarrow before the Supreme Court.







    Paul D. Clement .................................................................................................................... Donald Verrilli Jr.
    The States .................................................................................................................... The Obama Administration
    Paul Clement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ..................................... Donald Verrilli Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    [​IMG] ............................................................................................. [​IMG]

    .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2014
  2. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,926
    Thanks Received:
    6,090
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +19,807
    The burden of forcing people to buy something under government decree is grounds enough. Penalizing them for not buying is further injury.
     
  3. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,604
    Thanks Received:
    4,588
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,093
    I can't wait untill it's over turned!
     
  4. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845
    I'm terrified that the SCOTUS will not overturn this and it will be the modern equivalent of Crossing the Rubicon.
     
  5. Neotrotsky
    Offline

    Neotrotsky Council to Supreme Soviet

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    10,389
    Thanks Received:
    1,251
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    People's Republic
    Ratings:
    +2,342
    One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
    it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
    at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
    it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.


    Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
    what a stupid idea this was now

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMKD1Mi8o0]Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube[/ame]
     
  6. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    Geex look at the resumes of each of these guys. Clement is 4 years younger than me and an obvious whiz kid, top of everything. Verilli is an also-ran who was very much a political appointment and barely squeaked by through a closure motion.
    Clement will wipe the floor with Verilii, who is out of his league.
     
  7. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    No one, to include his ideologicly opposing colleagues, doubts that Clement is possibly the best lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court in modern history. However, the arguments really don’t matter. His brief, however, certainly does. There is no doubt in my mind that the SCOTUS has already made up their minds after reading all those briefs. If there is any ambiguity it is unlikely not to be answered in oral arguments. For example, the Obama Administration can think of no limiting principle for the commerce clause. Good luck with that before the court. They will most certainly ask for one as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
  8. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,906
    Thanks Received:
    5,107
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,702
    I'd never argue against oral. I think it's pretty good myself...:lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. Vidi
    Offline

    Vidi CDZ prohibited

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,869
    Thanks Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Ratings:
    +343
    It's not going to be overturned.

    49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

    If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.
     
  10. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    49 states do not require that you purchase car insurance as a condition of living. They require you purchase it in order to drive a car on state and federal roads AFTER you CHOSE to enter in to the automobile market. And remember, it’s the states that have the constitutional authority of the police power that require that you have insurance, not so much the federal government. Nonetheless, they don’t require car insurance for driving on private property, nor do they require it for riding a bus, walking, riding a bike, etc... If you’re justifying the healthcare law with car insurance you need to change your equivocation a bit. You need to concede that federal the government has the constitutional authority to force you to enter in to the car market, when you had no intention of doing so, so they can then tell you to buy car insurance to shift the cost from those poor souls with preexisting accidents, speeding tickets, and high insurance costs.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012

Share This Page