Well, folks, Tuesday's oral arguments certainly did not disappoint. I have to admit that my biggest take-away from the arguments has been an absolute deep respect for Justice Sotomayor. What an admirable addition to the SCOTUS bench! Her questions are erudite. She goes straight to the heart of the issue. She's polite, respectful of other people, their ideas and opinions, yet definite in her own opinions and ideas. She seems the most prepared of any of the Justices and I believe she has asked the most questions although Justice Kennedy was very engaged.
Did we gather any inklings from Tuesday's arguments and questions to guess what the ruling will be? I don't think so. For my money, the Justices asked tough questions of both sides of the issue. And I'm not sure that the kind of questions asked translate in any way to what the final decision will be. I'm a complete outsider on these proceedings but I can't help but feel that the real decision-making process is going to take place between the Justices as they try to sway each other toward adopting a majority opinion. Maybe something one side or the other said may bolster a Justice's opinion but there were no surprises from counsel on either side. (Although I have to agree with other commentators that the Administration's advocate could have been more...more...I don't know...maybe a greater stage presence would have helped?) Anyway, I don't think that matters to the Justices. We're really only talking about two Justices that are possibly in the swing seat. Roberts and Kennedy. Do not believe that yesterday's arguments swayed anyone into a totally new position.
Today, C-SPAN starts playing the oral arguments at 12:30PM. Today the discussion centers around what happens to the rest of the law if the mandate is overturned. Can the mandate or the mandate/penalty be severed from the rest of the law so that the remainder of the Act stays in place? The other big question presented today centers around the expansion of Medicaid. Federalism may hang in the balance. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
Showing posts with label Affordable Care Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Affordable Care Act. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Oral Arguments Day #1 - Affordable Care Act
Well, did you watch the first set of Supreme Court oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act? The case that is bringing the arguments forward is Florida v. Department of Health & Human Services. If you were on the moon yesterday and missed the national news coverage of this exceptional court proceeding, you can catch the audio coverage on C-SPAN which has set up an oral arguments page on its website.
I found them pretty informative and definitely worth watching. The Justices were undoubtedly engaged in this debate. They interrupted Counsels (all of them at one point or another) to ask pointed questions and not waste time on lawyer meandering. All of them seemed to be coming down on the side of not punting this discussion another two years.
The topic for this set of questions was very arcane. To oversimplify the question, is the penalty imposed by the Affordable Care Act actually a tax which in turn means that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits the Court from taking jurisdiction and addressing the constitutional issue until the tax actually goes into effect? The Justices are expected to answer that question before the end of the 2012 term in June.
In the meantime, let me just say that I was very impressed with Justice Sotomayor's questions and her manner. She was definitely on top of the issue and the cases and traded case names with counsel in a kind of verbal short-hand that peppered the discussion and led counsel in some instances in directions they may not necessarily have wanted to tread. In many ways, it was a history lesson on the hows and whys the act came into being.
One of the more interesting facets of this particular issue is that the Court appointed a counsel to argue that the Anti-Injunction Act applies in this instance. The Justices took that step because the two opposing sides on the case agree (for different reasons) that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply and the Justices wanted the opposite arguments brief and argued.
Stay tuned for take #2 today when the Court visits the issue as to whether the individual mandate is constitutionally permitted. You can catch the audio coverage in its entirety on C-Span at 1PM and at other times throughout the day.
I found them pretty informative and definitely worth watching. The Justices were undoubtedly engaged in this debate. They interrupted Counsels (all of them at one point or another) to ask pointed questions and not waste time on lawyer meandering. All of them seemed to be coming down on the side of not punting this discussion another two years.
The topic for this set of questions was very arcane. To oversimplify the question, is the penalty imposed by the Affordable Care Act actually a tax which in turn means that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits the Court from taking jurisdiction and addressing the constitutional issue until the tax actually goes into effect? The Justices are expected to answer that question before the end of the 2012 term in June.
In the meantime, let me just say that I was very impressed with Justice Sotomayor's questions and her manner. She was definitely on top of the issue and the cases and traded case names with counsel in a kind of verbal short-hand that peppered the discussion and led counsel in some instances in directions they may not necessarily have wanted to tread. In many ways, it was a history lesson on the hows and whys the act came into being.
One of the more interesting facets of this particular issue is that the Court appointed a counsel to argue that the Anti-Injunction Act applies in this instance. The Justices took that step because the two opposing sides on the case agree (for different reasons) that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply and the Justices wanted the opposite arguments brief and argued.
Stay tuned for take #2 today when the Court visits the issue as to whether the individual mandate is constitutionally permitted. You can catch the audio coverage in its entirety on C-Span at 1PM and at other times throughout the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)