Supreme Court Quotes - Obamacare

[Grog]

I'm having fun reading the court transcripts after the daily hearings on Obamacare. This keeps me somewhat infromed about the proceedings and I can avoid the talking heads on the tube.

All of the discussions are on the Supreme Court website in .pdf format. http://www.supremecourt.gov

It has been fun reading.

My favorite from yesterday.


General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you
are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.

And my favorites from today.


Do you think there is a market for burial services?

For burial services?

Yes.

Yes, Justice Alito, I think there is.

All right. Suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said: You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else. Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?

No

And if that's true, why isn't it equally artificial to say that somebody who is doing absolutely nothing about health care is financing health care services.

[Grog]

To get to the .pdf files, click on the Oral Arguments menu and then the Argument Transcripts submenu. Earlier they were posted on the main page but they are not any longer. Here is a direct link to the .pdf files. Scroll down to "Department of Health and Human Servs. v. Florida"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx

[BabushkaLady]

Thanks and keep this thread updated if you can.

[Grog]

Updated from todays transcript. These are the quotes I found noteworthy.


Well, why isn't that a consequence of how willing they have been since the New Deal to take the Federal Government's money? And it seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal Government has done, they should not be surprised that the Federal Government, having attached the -- they tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal Government isn't going to start pulling them.

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

Counsel, if we go back to the era of matching what a State pays to what a State gets, Florida loses. It's citizens pay out much less than what they get back in Federal subsidies of all kinds. So you can't really be making the argument that Florida can't ask for more than it gives, because it's really giving less than it receives.

Well, then I'll make

You don't really want to go back to that point, do you?

Well, then I'll make that argument on behalf of Texas.
(laughter)

Comment from Grog: Texas is a net loser in regards to federal funding, we pay more to D.C. than we receive back in funding.

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

But the question is not -- obviously, the States are interested in the same objective, and they have a disagreement, or they have budget realities that they have to deal with. And States say, well, we are going to cut by 10 percent what we reimburse this for or that for, and the Federal Government says, well, you can't. And no one is suggesting that people want to cut health care, but they have different views about how to implement policy in this area. And the concern is that the Secretary has the total and complete say because the Secretary has the authority under this provision to say, you lose everything. No one's suggested in the normal course that will happen; but, so long as the Federal government has that power, it seems to be a significant intrusion on the sovereign interests of the State. Now, I'm not -- it may be something they gave up many decades ago when they decided to live off of Federal funds, but I don't think you can deny that it's a significant authority that we are giving the Federal Government to say, you can take away everything if the States don't buy into the next program.

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

But do you agree that there still is inherent and implicit in the idea of federalism, necessary for the idea of federalism, that there be a clear line of accountability so the citizen knows that it's the Federal or the State government who should be held responsible for their program?

Certainly, but I think the problem here is -

And does coercion relate to that, or is that a separate -

Yes, but I think -

-- is that a separate doctrine?

Well, I think it relates to it in the opposite way that my friends on the other side would like it to, in that I think their argument is that it would subject us to such a high degree of political accountability at the State level to withdraw ourselves from the program, that it's an unpalatable choice for us, and that's where the coercive effect comes from. And that's why I think -

Well, but I think the answer would be that the State wants to preserve its integrity, its identity, its responsibility in the Federal system.

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

-- why do you care? If it's such a good deal, why do you need the club?

Well, the -- the -

If it's a good deal, take it.

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

There's no real -- there's no realistic choice. There's no real choice. And Congress does not in effect allow for an out -- opt out. We just know that. And it's -

Well, I guess I -

-- it's substantial.

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

The perfect example is prescription coverage. It's a big part of the benefits that some States but not all provide voluntarily now. It will no longer be voluntary after the expansion because the Federal Government has deemed that prescription drugs to be part of the minimal essential health coverage that everybody in this country must have under the mandate. So that option that the State has is being removed by the expansion itself.

[Grog]

I wish I had seats in the gallery for this case. I love this sort of theater.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

I like how open and honest they are being about the complete lack of sovereignty.



Well, why isn't that a consequence of how willing they have been since the New Deal to take the Federal Government's money? And it seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal Government has done, they should not be surprised that the Federal Government, having attached the -- they tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal Government isn't going to start pulling them.

I also find it interesting that they believe their power comes directly from the acceptance of federal funds.

Perhaps the founders should have included language to communicate that the benefits from the coinage of money at the congressional level cannot be used to revoke the sovereignty of the states.


If you read between the lines, the discussions above are not about whether or not is unconstitutional - it obviously is - the discussions above are about whether it is okay to just go and do it regardless.

[Grog]

I also find it interesting that they believe their power comes directly from the acceptance of federal funds.

Something I didn't quote, as it was pervasive in the document, is the idea that the money the fed is providing to the states is the fed's money. Its the people's money. Very little money is earned by the fed.

I read a quote the other day that a French guy in the 1800s said and I'm paraphrasing, "The American democracy will endure until the govenrment learns it can bribe the people with their own money."

So true. I need to find the guy's name.

[gunDriller]

"Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?

Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

MR. KNEEDLER: Well -"


PeloSh.t was too busy too read it. "we have to pass it so we can find out what's in it" - she said.

2800 pages !

anyway the link for Scalia's comment -
http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/

never thought i'd be giving Scalia a thumbs up !

[jimswift]

PeloSh.t was too busy too read it. "we have to pass it so we can find out what's in it" - she said.



I still can't believe she wasn't arrested on the spot for that.