http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congres...19601.html

Quote:“I’m predicting 6-3 in favor,” she said during an hour-long discussion with the Paley Center for Media. “But we shall see. It’s a lesson in civics and I respect it, I respect the court and judicial review.”

Ok it's conceivable the mandate holds 5-4 but 6-3?

(04-04-2012 12:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congres...19601.html

Quote:“I’m predicting 6-3 in favor,” she said during an hour-long discussion with the Paley Center for Media. “But we shall see. It’s a lesson in civics and I respect it, I respect the court and judicial review.”

Ok it's conceivable the mandate holds 5-4 but 6-3?

She is holding to the liberal wet dream that Roberts would vote to uphold it when it was clear Kennedy was going that way in order to not make the court look so political. Then he could write the opinion and narrowly define the mandate to just health insurance.

This of course is predicated on the idea that Roberts cares more about how the court looks than what he believes is constitutional.

Possible, but I don't buy it.

I wonder if she ever got around to reading it.

(04-04-2012 01:20 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  She is holding to the liberal wet dream that Roberts would vote to uphold it when it was clear Kennedy was going that way in order to not make the court look so political. Then he could write the opinion and narrowly define the mandate to just health insurance.

Former (1969-86) Chief Justice Warren Burger was notorious for doing that (i.e., joining a majority-decision that he disagreed with, just so he could either write the opinion himself, or at least decide who did write the opinion). It is undisputed that he did this a lot, and some speculation that he did it frequently in "high profile" cases like Roe v. Wade

The vote is likely anywhere from 6-3 to uphold to 4-5. Kennedy and Scalia will decide. If one of them do it's possible Roberts joins to direct the opinion so 7-2 is a long shot but possible.

Guaranteed yeas: Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor
Guaranteed neas: Thomas, Alito

(04-04-2012 08:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I wonder if she ever got around to reading it.

I doubt that it's the waiting room reading material at her local plastic surgeon.

(04-05-2012 08:38 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 08:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I wonder if she ever got around to reading it.

I doubt that it's the waiting room reading material at her local plastic surgeon.

Which probably got a waiver...

(04-05-2012 04:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Kennedy and Scalia will decide. If one of them do it's possible Roberts joins to direct the opinion so 7-2 is a long shot but possible.

"Possible" covers a lot of ground, so I won't literally disagree with that.

But I would be absolutely shocked if Scalia or Roberts vote to uphold the mandate. I'm not getting the vibe that Roberts will change his vote just to be in the majority, although yes it's "possible".

The only bona-fide wild card here, IMHO, is Kennedy. I wouldn't dare try to predict how he will vote on this, although the general tone of his questions obviously seemed to indicate hostility to the mandate.

(04-05-2012 09:04 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  But I would be absolutely shocked if Scalia or Roberts vote to uphold the mandate. I'm not getting the vibe that Roberts will change his vote just to be in the majority, although yes it's "possible".

Scalia isn't going to uphold the mandate. I envision no scenerio in which he does. Liberals are hanging their hat on his Gonzalez opinion when the cases were not the same. Even the attorney that argued the case says Gonzalez won't apply.

Quote:The only bona-fide wild card here, IMHO, is Kennedy. I wouldn't dare try to predict how he will vote on this, although the general tone of his questions obviously seemed to indicate hostility to the mandate.

Agree.

Obama's tact on this in threatening the court is what is a bigger tell to me. I think he believes it's going against him so he's setting himself up to attack the court during his campaign. There is nothing he won't demagogue.

(04-05-2012 09:04 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  "Possible" covers a lot of ground, so I won't literally disagree with that.

Let's call it a remote possibility.

Quote:But I would be absolutely shocked if Scalia or Roberts vote to uphold the mandate. I'm not getting the vibe that Roberts will change his vote just to be in the majority, although yes it's "possible".

Don't worry about vibes. Scalia is principled and his vote in Gonzales to say that regulating homegrown and consumed marijuana is necessary and proper to effect regulation of interstate commerce in the marijuana market could very well make him feel constrained to vote for the mandate here. The individual mandate is very simliar; making people buy insurance is necessary and proper to effect a desired regulation of interstate commerce in the health market.

Roberts I think is less principled and might switch due to the Burger effect you mentioned, especially if he's joining Scalia.

Quote:The only bona-fide wild card here, IMHO, is Kennedy. I wouldn't dare try to predict how he will vote on this, although the general tone of his questions obviously seemed to indicate hostility to the mandate.

Well actually he did adopt the SG's language in grilling the petitioner counsel at points, so I wouldn't call Kennedy's tone necessarily hostile to the mandate. But even if it was, I wouldn't read too much into that.

MAX POWER ODDS OF VOTING FOR THE MANDATE

Kagan 999:1,000
Sotomayor 999:1,000
Ginsburg 999:1,000
Breyer 99:100
Kennedy 1:2
Scalia 2:5
Roberts 1:20
Thomas 1:1,000
Alito 1:1,000

(04-04-2012 12:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:“I’m predicting 6-3 in favor,” she said during an hour-long discussion with the Paley Center for Media. “But we shall see. It’s a lesson in civics and I respect it, I respect the court and judicial review.”

Ok it's conceivable the mandate holds 5-4 but 6-3?

Really, what does it matter what she says? No one will hold her to what she says, right wrong or indifferent. Not the "6-3" claim and certainly not the "respect the courts' claim

(04-05-2012 11:07 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Scalia is principled and his vote in Gonzales to say that regulating homegrown and consumed marijuana is necessary and proper to effect regulation of interstate commerce in the marijuana market could very well make him feel constrained to vote for the mandate here. The individual mandate is very simliar; making people buy insurance is necessary and proper to effect a desired regulation of interstate commerce in the health market.

However, you are not forced to purchase marijuana just because you're alive.

(04-05-2012 01:06 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 11:07 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Scalia is principled and his vote in Gonzales to say that regulating homegrown and consumed marijuana is necessary and proper to effect regulation of interstate commerce in the marijuana market could very well make him feel constrained to vote for the mandate here. The individual mandate is very simliar; making people buy insurance is necessary and proper to effect a desired regulation of interstate commerce in the health market.

However, you are not forced to purchase marijuana just because you're alive.

Yes...I am.

(04-05-2012 01:06 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 11:07 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Scalia is principled and his vote in Gonzales to say that regulating homegrown and consumed marijuana is necessary and proper to effect regulation of interstate commerce in the marijuana market could very well make him feel constrained to vote for the mandate here. The individual mandate is very simliar; making people buy insurance is necessary and proper to effect a desired regulation of interstate commerce in the health market.

However, you are not forced to purchase marijuana just because you're alive.

You're not in the marijuana market by virtue of being alive either.