You can listen to today’s arguments by clicking here. Today’s arguments centered around whether the new conditions on all federal Medicaid funding could be considered as unconstitutional coercion of the States and whether striking down the ObamaCare mandate would dismantle the entire law.
Beware of predictions of ObamaCare’s demise by the liberal media because they are premature:
Yesterday, Jeffrey Toobin, a liberal legal analyst for CNN, was rebuked by Senator Harry Reid for predicting that, based on yesterday’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court would rule against Obamacare’s Individual Mandate. But despite early predictions of the Individual Mandate’s demise, a closer look at the oral arguments shows that such analysis is premature.
It is generally agreed that in order to win this case, the respondents (opponents of the law) will have to win over the four conservatives on the bench, Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, as well as, the court’s perennial swing vote, Justice Kennedy.
Each of them would have to agree with the law’s opponents on both of two issues:
1. The Individual Mandate is not constitutional because it violates Congress’s Commerce Clause powers.
2. The Individual Mandate is not a tax and thus is not constitutionally justified under Congress’s power to tax.
Yesterday’s oral arguments were almost entirely centered on the Commerce Clause.
Click here to continue reading.
More on ObamaCare:
ObamaCare & SCOTUS: Day 2
ObamaCare & SCOTUS: Day 1
Supreme Court oral arguments begin on ObamaCare
Two years of Obamacare and ‘We’re still trying to find out what’s in it.’
ObamaCare turning 2, costs still rising as point of no return nears
Let them eat health care!
ObamaCare 10-year costs jumps to $1.75 trillion