Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Liberal Justices Take Up Task Of Arguing The Case For ObamaCare

Aren't they at least supposed to pretend to be impartial? Today, they worked as surrogates for Obama's inept Solicitor General. On the other hand, the poor guy was sent out there to defend the indefensible.
At various points the liberal justices made counter-arguments through their own questions – that cross-subsidy of sick to healthy is the whole point of programs like Social Security (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), that everybody gets sick eventually (Elana Kagan), that the failures of the insurance market are a clearly national problem empowering the federal government to use its powers (Stephen Breyer), and that functionally the mandate is no different than a clearly constitutional tax credit (Sonia Sotomayor).

They also got Clement to admit that a requirement that people buy insurance when they show up at the hospital would be constitutional, prompting Kagan (I think it was her) to question why it was unconstitutional to require purchase beforehand. They also got the side challenging the law to admit that, short of a government takeover of health insurance, the government might have little ability to make insurance universal while still preserving the private insurance industry.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home