Last day of term next Monday.

Obamacare and Arizona Immigration Law opinions coming down.

It always makes me smile to start off the week by kicking the Obama Administration in the testicles.

Today's opinions:

SEIU loses 7-2. Down with the Purple Shirt Marxists!

Fox TV beats the FCC 9-0 on the issue of whether FCC regulation of indecent (but not illegal) over-the-air content is consistent with the First Amendment. "Because the FCC failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcast that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity would be indecent, the Commission's standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague."

Yea!!!!!

If the Supreme Court knocks down Obama care, how will the Obamanistas blame Bush?

I believe they sometimes release it a few days after their term, so it might be as late as a week from today.

I think Scalia, by releasing a book in which he slams Wickard as bad law-- even though he followed Wickard in ruling against those damn hippie potheads in Gonzales-- has indicated how he will rule (against). I had some hope he'd follow his Gonzales opinion but now I'm giving up on that. Ginsburg has given an indication too I think, by mentioning how important dissenting opinions can be and that "if" the court rules to strike it down they have to decide whether they can sever the mandate like a "head of broccoli." I golfed last week with a federal judge who met Chief Justice Roberts at the 7th circuit building recently and unfortunately he was mum on the subject. These guys are pretty good at keeping secrets so I could be reading too much into this, but all the same I don't like it.

That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate. I do imagine the rest of the law will stand, but the zombie law won't be long for this world and the debate to replace it will start up again anyway. There's still a chance I'm reading too much into it and it winds up 6-3 in favor though (Roberts joins the majority just to avoid another split to protect the court's declining perception).

A ruling against the mandate while leaving the rest of the law in place is the worst possible outcome. The mandate is one of the very few parts of the law that's actually any good. Without it, the pre-existing condition requirement (another good part) is not economically feasible. I suppose the provision to cover children longer is a good one, although I have some reservations about it. The rest of it is pretty much a disaster. It combines the worst part of our current system (tying health insurance to employment) with the worst of socialized medicine (the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that will make the process even more cumbersome and expensive than it is now, while essentially invalidating the doctor-patient relationship). Throwing out the good and keeping the bad is not exactly a recipe for success.

(06-21-2012 10:05 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate.

My neighbor is a Harvard lawyer, a big time Obama nut, and a proponent of Obamacare and even he thinks the law goes down in flames. Telling people they have to buy something or face a fine is not in the Constitution.

(06-21-2012 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A ruling against the mandate while leaving the rest of the law in place is the worst possible outcome. The mandate is one of the very few parts of the law that's actually any good. Without it, the pre-existing condition requirement (another good part) is not economically feasible. I suppose the provision to cover children longer is a good one, although I have some reservations about it. The rest of it is pretty much a disaster. It combines the worst part of our current system (tying health insurance to employment) with the worst of socialized medicine (the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that will make the process even more cumbersome and expensive than it is now, while essentially invalidating the doctor-patient relationship). Throwing out the good and keeping the bad is not exactly a recipe for success.

You can cover pre-existing conditions under the present system. I pay through the nose because of my knees and ankle. But if I have to have another surgery it will be more than enough to satisfy the deductible.

I dont see how you can sever out the Mandate. Day Three of the Oral arguments pretty much says you cant.

(06-21-2012 10:05 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I believe they sometimes release it a few days after their term, so it might be as late as a week from today.

I think Scalia, by releasing a book in which he slams Wickard as bad law-- even though he followed Wickard in ruling against those damn hippie potheads in Gonzales-- has indicated how he will rule (against). I had some hope he'd follow his Gonzales opinion but now I'm giving up on that. Ginsburg has given an indication too I think, by mentioning how important dissenting opinions can be and that "if" the court rules to strike it down they have to decide whether they can sever the mandate like a "head of broccoli." I golfed last week with a federal judge who met Chief Justice Roberts at the 7th circuit building recently and unfortunately he was mum on the subject. These guys are pretty good at keeping secrets so I could be reading too much into this, but all the same I don't like it.

That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate. I do imagine the rest of the law will stand, but the zombie law won't be long for this world and the debate to replace it will start up again anyway. There's still a chance I'm reading too much into it and it winds up 6-3 in favor though (Roberts joins the majority just to avoid another split to protect the court's declining perception).

When the Court nixed the "Absolute Priority Rule" in the GM and Chrysler Bankruptcy cases, anything is possible.

(06-21-2012 10:13 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:05 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate.

My neighbor is a Harvard lawyer, a big time Obama nut, and a proponent of Obamacare and even he thinks the law goes down in flames. Telling people they have to buy something or face a fine is not in the Constitution.

I doubt seriously your neighbor is a Harvard lawyer. A Harvard lawyer wouldn't live in a trailer park with an outhouse.

(06-21-2012 10:30 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:13 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:05 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate.

My neighbor is a Harvard lawyer, a big time Obama nut, and a proponent of Obamacare and even he thinks the law goes down in flames. Telling people they have to buy something or face a fine is not in the Constitution.

I doubt seriously your neighbor is a Harvard lawyer. A Harvard lawyer wouldn't live in a trailer park with an outhouse.

You really wanna go there?

(06-21-2012 10:54 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:30 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:13 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:05 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate.

My neighbor is a Harvard lawyer, a big time Obama nut, and a proponent of Obamacare and even he thinks the law goes down in flames. Telling people they have to buy something or face a fine is not in the Constitution.

I doubt seriously your neighbor is a Harvard lawyer. A Harvard lawyer wouldn't live in a trailer park with an outhouse.

You really wanna go there?

Where? To his trailer? Not really.

(06-21-2012 10:30 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:13 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:05 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate.

My neighbor is a Harvard lawyer, a big time Obama nut, and a proponent of Obamacare and even he thinks the law goes down in flames. Telling people they have to buy something or face a fine is not in the Constitution.

I doubt seriously your neighbor is a Harvard lawyer. A Harvard lawyer wouldn't live in a trailer park with an outhouse.

The guy's name if Frank Guzman. Look him up.

(06-21-2012 11:44 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:30 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:13 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:05 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate.

My neighbor is a Harvard lawyer, a big time Obama nut, and a proponent of Obamacare and even he thinks the law goes down in flames. Telling people they have to buy something or face a fine is not in the Constitution.

I doubt seriously your neighbor is a Harvard lawyer. A Harvard lawyer wouldn't live in a trailer park with an outhouse.

The guy's name if Frank Guzman. Look him up.

But my neighbor is E.F. Hutton. And E.F. Hutton says you're full of ****.

Look that up!

(06-21-2012 11:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 11:44 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:30 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:13 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 10:05 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That said, I hate to say it, but I see a 5-4 ruling coming down against the mandate.

My neighbor is a Harvard lawyer, a big time Obama nut, and a proponent of Obamacare and even he thinks the law goes down in flames. Telling people they have to buy something or face a fine is not in the Constitution.

I doubt seriously your neighbor is a Harvard lawyer. A Harvard lawyer wouldn't live in a trailer park with an outhouse.

The guy's name if Frank Guzman. Look him up.

But my neighbor is E.F. Hutton. And E.F. Hutton says you're full of ****.

Look that up!

I was just playing. It wouldn't surprise me if he lives next to a Harvard lawyer. SMN works for the cable company so I am sure he gets paid well, afterall, it doesn't matter all that much to them how much they pay, they are a virtual monopoly and can just squeeze more out of the consumer to pay him is bloated salary.