ObamaCare And The Supreme Court Schedule

Apparently Monday is a big day for Team Obama, which can decide whether to delay a Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare until after the 2012 election:

Reporting from Washington—

Obama administration lawyers face a decision by Monday that carries a high political risk and will probably determine whether the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of the healthcare law before next year's presidential election.

The Justice Department could ask the full U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to reconsider a 2-1 decision in August that declared the law's mandate that all Americans must have health insurance unconstitutional. But seeking the full court review could take weeks, or even months, and probably push back a Supreme Court ruling until 2013.

Or government lawyers could opt to skip the full review in the lower court and appeal directly to the Supreme Court this fall. That in turn will probably lead to a constitutional ruling on President Obama's healthcare law by next summer.

Under the appeals court's rules, the Justice Department must notify the 11th Circuit by Monday whether it will seek a full court review. In recent weeks, lawyers on both sides of the case have been speculating on whether Obama's legal team is eager to get the healthcare dispute before the Supreme Court soon, even if it means risking an embarrassing defeat for the president as he seeks reelection.

Do they take a knee and head for the half-time locker room, or run a play?  Obamacare does not poll well and Republicans will be campaigning on its repeal whatever the Supremes decide.  And (just thinking out loud here) Obama might actually benefit from a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare, since it would give him an excuse to give the people what they want.  Put another way, if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare it will be obvious that the only way to end it is to end Obama's reign.

That said, it is a bit awkward that our genius President and law school lecturer on the Constitution would have blundered on the mandate, but then again, Obama never supported a mandate as a candidate.

Naah.  Delay is the only sensible choice for them.  The strategic bet is that some of the folks who don't like ObamaCare will figure that the courts will end it, and they will vote Democratic for other reasons.  A Supreme Cout ruling against ObamaCare will energize Republicans; a Supreme Court ruling in its favor will double-energize them.

UPDATE: It's on to the Supremes, in what Politico describes as a show of confidence by the confidence men at Team Obama.  At the SCOTUSBlog, Lyle Denniston explains how the Supremes might take up a case yet duck a decision.

Comments

[A.Men]

Palin 2012.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Last minute filing, of course.

Everybody knows nothing would get done if it weren't for the last minute.

[Jumpstart]

Whatever is the most weaselly, cowardly ,self-serving thing to do, rest assured that they will do it, and them pat themselves on the back for it.

Meanwhile, watch them engineer a US taxpayer bailout for their EUocrat buddies via a fresh cash pump up of the the IMF.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Hey, instead of Cain, you might want to run this guy......

Terry Alan Crews as U.S. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

[Danube of Thought]

I think they'll opt to delay it. Not just for the reasons TM stated, but but also because they might get the en banc review, and it might be in their favor. I don't see much downside for them.

[pagar]

"and they will vote Democratic for other reasons"

I can't imagine any reason why an American would vote for a Democrat.

[Porchlight]

Terry Alan Crews as U.S. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew

He already got elected in 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i93BJiYLaj8

South Carolina!

[Cecil Turner]

Naah. Delay is the only sensible choice for them.

I agree, but for a slightly different reason. They think this is their legacy, and that it'll survive, in some form, even after the GOP takeover. Delusional, but there you have it.

[Clarice]

It's possible that the Court might, considering the costs and gravity, set a highly expedited schedule should they agree to an en banc hearing. After all, it's a strictly legal issue with no real complicating facts.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Edward Morrissey

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/211658/will-the-supreme-court-decide-the-2012-presidential-election

"While these two rulings have cheered opponents of the bill, the issue is far from decided. Two earlier rulings by judges upheld the constitutionality of PPACA. Both involved private-sector plaintiffs rather than states, but standing wasn't an issue in either case; both federal judges ruled on the merits of the complaints and found that Congress acted within its authority under the Commerce Clause. No appellate court has adjudicated an Obamacare lawsuit, which means that none of these rulings have the force of precedent.

No one doubts that the Supreme Court will eventually have to settle the questions of the individual mandate and severability. The only question is when they will choose to consider it — and that is a question fraught with political consequences, for both President Barack Obama and those Democrats still in Congress."

After the bloody stump had retreated from Bush V. Gore, and the usual suspects have hand-wrung, I suspect they will see no emergency in hearing the case before 2012, as Healthcare is not implemented until 2013, but call me optimistic.

But then, there's this......

"The question of severability in the legal sense will play an important part of the appeals process, up to the Supreme Court sooner or later. The bigger question will be whether President Obama and his party will have any political severability from Obamacare if the Supreme Court overturns it on an expedited review. Voters will give the final judgment on that point, but given Democrats' lack of accomplishment over the past few years, don't bet on it."

I think this is a clever juxtaposition between legal language and
political jargon, but apt. I don't think Obama can 'sever' and turn this lemon into lemonade.

[Captain Hate]

CT, it's being funded every day that the Repubs are unsuccessful in killing it so I don't think it's as delusional as you're stating. I'm pretty damn upset at Boehner doing the absolute minimum in terms of ridding us of that growing malignant tumor; he's brought it up once and subsequently has ignored it when it was turned down by the Senate. At some point the donks will be talking about their inaction as allowing it to proceed and now are trying to kill it after billions have been invested in it for which the taxpayers will receive nothing. This drain to our economy and future should be addressed daily. I really don't think Boehner understands the responsibilities of his job; I'm not saying he's a bad person, just not the right person to be Speaker of an opposition party.

[Threadkiller]

What do Cain and Crews have in common?

If The Bens were colorblind they would have never made that comparison.

[Jack is Back!]

How do these scenarios affect the general election especially for POTUS:

1. The SCOTUS hears expedited arguments and rules prior to the 2012 election but rules for the government, or,
2. The SCOTUS rules in favor of the States and either strikes down the mandate or the whole law, or,
3. The Government delays going to the SCOTUS until after the election - in 2013.

It seems to me that if you get number 1 - it will super-charge voter motivation to turn out and vote in candidates pledging to reform or repeal the law. If you get number 2, does that in fact give the Dems some wiggle room since you don't have the same motivated electorate? And number 3 is just another form of motivation to repeal - to have a security net in case the SCOTUS finds for the government.

Whatever the government intends to do both going ahead and delaying seem like losing positions politically when it comes to the election. They can argue law all they want but that is not how the electorate or the candidates will portray it. This is all about government size, reach and intrusion and the republicans running for POTUS know it.

[Danube of Thought]

No appellate court has adjudicated an Obamacare lawsuit, which means that none of these rulings have the force of precedent.

Morrissey wrote those words on February 11, 2011. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeal adjudicated in on August 11, holding the mandate unconstitutional.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Judge Nolapitano says it WILL be heard before election----

Nuff said.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/06/08/judge-health-care-law-to-reach-supreme-court-in-2012/

[Extraneus]

If the SC rules against the law before the election, Democrats will be looking to hang Obama in a tree. And if the market rallies, they won't be able to take any credit for it. Just the opposite.

No way they'd voluntarily risk that before the election. Too gutsy.

[narciso]

One of the dissapointing things about Bachmann's campaign, is that she didn't zero in on the implementing funds for Obamacare, that were spotted in the continuing resolution, so as a consequence, they are letting it gestate, until it pops out like
a Facehugger.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Ex-

I'm likin' yer thinkin'.

[Danube of Thought]

Not to put to fine a point on it, but I don't think Obama was a lecturer on "the Constitution." I believe he lectured only of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, which leaves out one hell of a lot (e.g, 1st and 2nd Amendments, Commerce Clause, etc.).

[Benjamin Franklin]

Conservatives are winning the war for the voter's mind...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/Americans-Express-Historic-Negativity-Toward-Government.aspx

'Congratulations', seems to be in order...

82% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.
69% say they have little or no confidence in the legislative branch of government, an all-time high and up from 63% in 2010.

57% have little or no confidence in the federal government to solve domestic problems, exceeding the previous high of 53% recorded in 2010 and well exceeding the 43% who have little or no confidence in the government to solve international problems.

53% have little or no confidence in the men and women who seek or hold elected office.

Americans believe, on average, that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every tax dollar, similar to a year ago, but up significantly from 46 cents a decade ago and from an average 43 cents three decades ago.

49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%) believed this.

[Old Lurker]

A good graph at AT re tax rates.

LUN

[Benjamin Franklin]

"No appellate court has adjudicated an Obamacare lawsuit, which means that none of these rulings have the force of precedent."

You are right, DoT.

Anything else?

[Danube of Thought]

VDH in peak form:

Redistribution of wealth rather than emphasis on its creation is surely a symptom of aging societies. Whether at Byzantium during the Nika Riots or in bread and circuses Rome, when the public expects government to provide security rather than the individual to become autonomous through a growing economy, then there grows a collective lethargy. I think that is the message of Juvenal’s savage satires about both mobs and the idle rich. Fourth-century Athenian literature is characterized by forensic law suits, as citizens sought to sue each other, or to sue the state for sustenance, or to fight over inheritances.

The subtext of Petronius’s Satyricon is an affluent, childless, often underemployed citizenry seeking inheritances and lampooning the productive classes that produce enough excess for the wily to get by just fine without working. Somewhere around 1985 in California I noticed that my students were hoping for a state job first, a federal job second, a municipal job third — and a private one last. Around 1990, suddenly two sorts of commercials were aired everywhere: how to join a law suit by calling a law firm’s 1-800 number or how to get a free power chair, scooter, or some other device by calling the 1-800 number of a health care company that would do the paper work for Social Security on your behalf.

[Clarice]

It appears as if the US Ct of Appeals for the Dist of Col , the court second in prestige to the SCOTUS, is about to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional, too, according to a report this weekend.

[Benjamin Franklin]

"Not that the elite are exempt. Western moral literature, from Horace to Thackeray, focuses on the vanity of the rich who think that a greedy heir won’t really inherit their hard-won or suspect riches, or that their always aging hips and knees will always so briskly power them up the monumental stairs of their colossal homes, or that a fifth sailboat or another 1000 acres will at last end the boredom. But the rub is not whether they are rich but whether they are idle, whether they send a message that affluence can make life better, rather than affluence is inevitably corrupting. In Suetonius’s Twelve Caesars, the theme is not just imperial decadence and cruelty, but also the blind passions of the mob that the elite so cynically manipulate for their own useless privilege and nonsensical indulgence."

I find it revealing, that the author used the Roman Circus as an example. I am not rich. But I have consorted with many I consider as recipients of 'old money', aka the 'idle rich'. They do not produce anything. They are Leviathan in their consumptive appetites, and they are just as unhappy and confused about their lives as their
counterparts. IOW; they are like most people, just richer.

No matter your station in life, you need accomplishment in order to be at peace with yourself. People who produce wealth imo, are of two classes;

1) Those who work to build wealth, because they wish to be financially independent.

2) Those who are financially independent, but need to accomplish something they feel worthwhile, which is beyond 'wealth'.

Those two categories of persons will do what they can to accomplish their goals no matter what the obstacles, even taxes or governmental regulation. So the Stawman Burneth....

[Danube of Thought]

Wow, Clarice. What case is that, and where did you see the report?

[Tom Maguire]

Re the District of Columbia Appeals Court, here is a story about their hearing on Friday.

And the WSJ intro:

WASHINGTON—Judges on a federal appellate court suggested Friday that last year's health-care overhaul was an unprecedented assertion of power by the government, but they didn't clearly signal a readiness to strike down the law.

The court at times questioned whether it even had jurisdiction to consider the case, an issue that could delay an ultimate resolution on the law's constitutionality.

Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Laurence Silberman, conservative members of a three-judge panel that presided over two hours of oral argument, said they worried about the implications of allowing Congress to require that individuals either purchase health insurance or pay a ...

Or, extended excerpts of the WSJ by John Lott.

[Danube of Thought]

Surprise, surprise: the folks who loved Suskind when he was trashing Bush are now attacking him.

SUSKIND: You know, Howie, you know as well as anybody it's a tough town. Many of the folks who were praising me mightily during the Bush era - these are the most definitive works on George Bush, this is the historical record - now are doing their best to struggle really to discredit those books and discredit this book.

[Army of Davids]

Dennis Miller on a Cain R nomination....

election 2012

"Cain vs Unable"

LOL

[narciso]

Ah, I have the smallest violin for ya, Ron,

[Ignatz]

--They are Leviathan in their consumptive appetites...

Isn't that just what Dr, Keynes ordered; aggregate demand?

[Clarice]

Gee,DoT, If you had me over for martinis more often you'd be up to date on this stuff....%^)

[Clarice]

It's true the court questioned whether it had jurisdiction and didn't say they would vote to overturn it--what else is new? That's pretty standard in a case like this, but 2 of the 3 judge panel were very clear they found the govt's constitutional argument on the mandate unpersuasive. Randy Barnett's looking more prescient every day.

[Danube of Thought]

You're welcome here for Martinis at each and evry opportunity, C--mi casa, su casa.

Kavanugh's statement that it won't work without the mandate suggests that he wouldn't sever it (I think). But the easiest way for the Supremes to punt the thing would be on the basis of jurisdiction, viz., no one has standing to bring an action until the mandate is actually implemented.

[Old Lurker]

"Those two categories of persons will do what they can to accomplish their goals no matter what the obstacles, even taxes or governmental regulation."

But not necessairly in a particular town, state, or country so long as they can relocate either themselves or their wealth engine, nor not necessairly in a manner that makes it easy for others to strip them of the wealth they created.

You might be right about the what drives some to be productive, but you are not right to assume those same people will roll over while others loot it.

[Danube of Thought]

In CT we see VDH's thesis validated:

"Long lines formed early Monday morning outside state Department of Social Services field offices, as low-income residents sought one-time payments for losses incurred during Tropical Storm Irene.

"By mid-morning Monday, more than 400 people stood in line outside the DSS office on North Main Street, next to the Connecticut Works center. The office is one of 12 statewide where state officials are distributing ATM-style cards allowing people to make approved purchases."

[timb]

There is nothing unconstitutional about the mandate and the entire thing can be moot if the full 11th Circuit reverses the three judge panel.

[Jack is Back!]

I am now convinced more than ever that Rush or his staff are regular lurkers here. The other day I made a snarky comment about what a great country we are to have "an intercontinental railroad that connects the 57 states and with ObamaCare we will need it to carry all the corpse-men to their final resting place". Today, driving down to Ormond Beach, I had him on and he repeated most of that but had the train (it being intercontinental) going to where the speak Austrian.

He was asking the audience to call into the Obama town hall meeting and ask him a question that connects "Jewish janitors" to the "intercontinental railroad" schtick.

[Captain Hate]

Why do we need a Supreme Court with geniuses like timb to pronounce what's Constitutional?

[Danube of Thought]

I see timb is ready to rule. Very persuasive.

[bgates]

There is nothing unconstitutional about the mandate

That's the most persuasive argument I've ever heard for it.

[Rick Ballard]

Obviously a Pitzer grad.

[bgates]

an intercontinental railroad

In related news:

* Obama announced Michelle is joining with Bloomberg to outlaw inter fats across the country

* The Justice Department has been tasked with stamping out discrimination against intersexuals

* Obama has told Ray LaHood he needs to hire more multilingual employees since he's the head of the Department of Interportation, and "we need to get some interlators to transpret up in here"

* Colleges and universities mystified by White House request for high-quality tranns

* Joe Biden aroused, horrified, confused by process of conducting tranviews for White House tranns

[Porchlight]

Rick, heh. I think maybe a sophomore at best.

[timb]

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to people who have never heard of the 20th century the 6th Circuit or case law, specifically Wickard. i sometimes forget how little conservatives know about the law. Politics sure.

Y'all do know, Paul Ryan's Medicare voucher plan contains a mandate?

No? Hey, let's hope it gets to the Supremes and Scalia either has to vote yes consistent with Raitch or no, consistent with Bush v Gore. When you lose this thing 6-3 or 7-2, we'll see how you feel.

PS Anyone see where Gallup showed the percentage of 18-25 years olds having health insurance is on the rise. http://www.gallup.com/poll/149558/Significantly-Fewer-Year-Olds-Uninsured.aspx

Can you tell me again why that is bad?

PPS Personal favorite thing: If the Supremes accepted the 11th Circuit's reasoning, chucked the mandate, and left the rest. Private insurance would last 10 days after that ruling as no one would buy insurance until they got sick. Surest and quickest way to single payer and 100% insured. It would be cool if the short-sighted conservative goons got what they wanted and I got what I wanted. Win-win

[Rick Ballard]

Porchlight,

You're right - slow sophomore.

[Clarice]

So slow he doesn't realize how slow he is.
Wickard? Or my, raise your hand if you never heard of it as the brat charges..

[Captain Hate]

i>I forgot I was talking to people who have never heard of the 20th century

It's the 21st century

[narciso]

No. we've just come back from the 22nd century
of Terra Nova's, or as I like to call it Jurassic Avatar

[Stephanie]

Aren't most regressives into progressing back to the future? Before evil oil, before evil energy, before evil cars and tractors and locavore farming for the Gaia worship? Twentieth indeed. 1903 when the steers were as full of horseshit as the space between their ears.

[Stephanie]

Streets. Stupid autocorrect

[MarkO]

The progressives, including the third-stringer here today, always envision an outcome to the Obama litigation that avoids a decision on the merits, one that calls out authoritarianism and voids it.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet]

timb

So your advice to DOJ is

(a) to petition for an en banc review in the 11th cir or

(b) to file a cert petition to SCOTUS?

I couldn't tell from your post.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Better imagery with "steers", IMO.

[Frau Wiesel Wort]

timb, why such a tease?

OT - Weasel words, weasel words, weasel words ... don't forget others of the mustela>/i> family: stoats (ermines), ferrets and polecats,for starters.

My husband's home town, Wesel on the lower Rhine, has three weasels in its coat of arms.

[Danube of Thought]

Timb, I hate to confront you with actual reality, but the commerce clause issues presented by the various Obamacare lawsuits have been siscussed at huge length on this site. Those discussions have included extensive analysis of the case law (particularly including Wickard) and the various district and appellate court decisions that have been rendered so far.

You dumb shit.

[DrJ]

off

[Danube of Thought]

"Can you tell me again why that is bad?"

Depends on who is paying for it.

Did you know that the average monthly number of jobs created since the passage of Obamacare is 6,000?

Can you tell me again why this is good?

[daddy]

"* Obama announced Michelle is joining with Bloomberg to outlaw inter fats across the country"

Well I guess I have to admit that Michelle Obama is correct.

Fatty foods like double CheeseBurgers do lead to death.

[narciso]

Well that's true from a 'certain point of view' as the Jedi say:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/09/firefly-and-anti-fascism-posters-get.html

[Porchlight]

Can you tell me again why that is bad?

timb, did you miss this from your Gallup link?

The percentage of uninsured 26- to 64-year-olds, however, continues to increase, rising to a high of 19.9% in the second quarter of this year. Among all Americans, 17.4% reported being uninsured in the second quarter of the year.

Just curious, who needs more health care per capita - those under 26, or those between 26-64?

[daddy]

Legal guys.

This story says an investigation is underway in Wisconsin for fraud and vote-buying in the recent Wisconsin Recall Elections Bruhaha.

DA looking at voter bribery accusations.

Story says:

"...Milwaukee County district attorney's office is investigating charges that Wisconsin Right to Life offered rewards for volunteers who signed up sympathetic voters in the recall races. Several people familiar with the investigation said subpoenas were being distributed "like candy."

And:

"Prosecutors had earlier acknowledged that they also were looking into complaints about get-out-the-vote block parties sponsored by a liberal group, Wisconsin Jobs Now...Wisconsin Jobs Now, a coalition of community and labor groups led by the Service Employees International Union..."

Anyone had a chance to look at this story yet and see if it has legs?

[Danube of Thought]

"Wisconsin Right to Life offered rewards for volunteers who signed up sympathetic voters"

Is that unlawful? Isn't that what time-honored "walking-around money" is?

[Frau Wiesel Wort]

"...September 2010 began allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plans up to age 26."

The *good* thing is that most in that age group won't use the health care. The *unhealthy* thing is that they are dependent on their parents and the rest of the tax payers.

[Frau Wiesel Wort]

(DrJ, thanks for the "off." Would you believe that I even used preview?)

[Porchlight]

Wait a minute. The rewards were "for volunteers who signed up sympathetic voters." Wouldn't voter bribery involve rewards for the registrants themselves - aka the voters - not the folks who signed them up?

[Frau Wiesel Wort]

It's lawful as long as it's not called "walking-around money." As we remember, in the mouth of Ed Rollins, it became "a dirty, political trick." LUN

[Frau Wiesel Wort]

Porch, you might like a history of the practice from this 2008 Slate article. Funny how the examples feature Democrats, isn't it?
LUN

[Threadkiller]

If constitutional timb comes back, I have a question for him.

[Janet]

"Wisconsin Right to Life offered rewards for volunteers who signed up sympathetic voters"

Dems make me sick. Here in Arlington we had the same thing happen with a petition effort to change our county board (neighborhood representation rather than all seats at-large). Anyway, the petitions got thrown out cause the group paid people to stand outside stores & collect signatures. Nothing was wrong with the signatures though.

[Danube of Thought]

Frau, I think it's lawful no matter what you call it. In any event it's widespread, although maybe WI has passed a law against it.

Ask him if he's got dual allegiance, TK.

[centralcal]

ha ha ha ha ha, TK!

[Jim Miller]

Whether rewards to election volunteers are legal probably depends on (1) the rewards, (2) the conditions, and (3) the state.

I have no idea what the Wisconsin laws say, or what happened, so I have no opinion on these cases, but I do remember an interesting example from next door in Minnesota, and another one from Oregon.

A candidate had an event at an old folks home and served doughnuts and coffee. A Minnesota prosecutor came that close to indicting him for offering bribes to the voters, and was, as far as I could tell, only talked out of it after he was told that he would look like a fool. And Carter got in trouble in Oregon in 1976 for giving away bags of peanuts.

In each case, the candidates went over the max you could give to voters.

[Porchlight]

Thanks for the info, Frau. Last question - the word used in the article was "rewards" - but whether or not they were monetary was not specified. How unlawful is it if no money traded hands and the "rewards" were a pizza party or a store gift card?

[Porchlight]

Thanks Jim Miller - so it sounds like the state laws vary pretty widely.

[Jeff]

timb ...

the 20 somethings are getting on their parents plan

[daddy]

Thanks DoT and guys for looking into it.

[Threadkiller]

Am I that obvious?

[Danube of Thought]

timb has seen his shadow and fled.

[Porchlight]

A Minnesota prosecutor came that close to indicting him for offering bribes to the voters

Wait, it turns out that (surprise) I am still confused. Which is unlawful:

offering bribes/rewards to voters

or

offering bribes/rewards to volunteers who aer signing up voters

?

Doesn't it seem like that's a pretty big difference?

[Danube of Thought]

It's definitely a question of state law, and it's common in many places.

[Frau Wiesel Wort]

I didn't make my snark obvious, DoT. It's unlawful, or at least fatally repugnant, if a "non-Democrat" puts it into practice. From Slate:

"Some street money comes from party fundraisers, like the Philadelphia Democratic Party's biannual Jefferson-Jackson dinner. But most of it comes directly from the candidates. Everyone from the presidential nominee to congressmen and state representatives are expected to chip in. (The top of the ticket usually contributes the most.) In Philadelphia, the candidate sends a check to the chairman of the city's Democratic Party, who then divides the money up among the 69 ward leaders, who in turn divvy up their cash among the 50 or so committee people in each ward. In 2004, John Kerry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Philadelphia street money, and ward leaders received checks for as much as $8,000. Individual volunteers can generally expect anywhere from $10 to $200, depending on the location and the type of work they're doing.

The practice is legal everywhere—it's protected by the First Amendment—but some states have tougher restrictions than others. In Philadelphia, committee people can hand out cash for any reason, as long as they're not paying someone for their vote."

lol

[Danube of Thought]

Sorry I missed your tone, Frau. I'm a serious-minded guy until cocktail hour, at which time I become irresistible.

I'm kind of surprised that it's protected by the 1st.

[Frau Wiesel Wort]

Red alert!
Via Insty: "IN WISCONSIN, IT’S BROWNSHIRTS VS. BROWNCOATS: ‘Firefly’ and Anti-Fascism Posters Get Professor Threatened with Criminal Charges on University of Wisconsin Campus.

To quote Firefly's Capt. Mal Reynolds( a possible descendant of Glenn's): "May have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one."

[Frau Wiesel Wort]

Remember, that comes from the Stale Slate, DoT, and remember, too, that I am freeway close.

[Jim Miller]

Porchlight - I was using those as examples of how picky the election laws could be in some states.

[timb]

Obama is a natural born citizen. Case closed.

[Moron.]

Naturellement.
=======

[He can't pledge allegiance without a teleprompter.]

Who needs it anymore, anyway?
===========

[MarkJ]

"I can't imagine any reason why an American would vote for a Democrat."

I can think of one reason: if you really enjoy thinking and acting like a blood-sucking parasite.

[Threadkiller]

That was easier than I thought. Timb must be bunkerbuster.

[Janet]

Via Insty: "IN WISCONSIN, IT’S BROWNSHIRTS VS. BROWNCOATS:

Frau, Frau, Frau!...is there anything lower than someone that would oppose Firefly?! Good Lord, that is low.
(*sent ya a letter on Friday..you crack me up)

[Danube of Thought]

His arguments are most compelling.

[Danube of Thought]

The one outcome that is more likely than other, of course, is that the GOP takes the White House and both houses of congress, and the whole wretched thing (or whatever is left of it) is repealed. That would render irrelevant anything the SCt does or does not do.

And the most fun of all will be the Senate doing it by the reconciliation process.

[Jim Miller]

MarkJ - One troubling observation from "Parasite Rex": Parasites outnumber the rest of us by about 4 to 1.

[Danube of Thought]

No request for en banc hearing filed.

[Clarice]

I love the second sentence of Politico's take (I doubt the SCOTUS share's the author's view of the political process.)
"The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional.

The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html#ixzz1Z6mhN6Uc

[Extraneus]

I know it's unlikely, but if they can get it done beforehand, I'd like to see them attend the SOTU next year.

[Clarice]

Ext, you are so evil.

[Clarice]

Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy:

There are lots of possible reasons why the Administration might have decided not to seek rehearing. Without personal knowledge of which mattered, I don’t think we can do more than just speculate as to the reason or mix of reasons. Perhaps they simply concluded that the prospects of success in a petition for rehearing were remote, and that the 11th Circuit judges who might write opinions respecting the denial of rehearing would hurt the government more than help it. Perhaps they figured that the Eleventh Circuit was the best vehicle for review, so it was better to petition from that case. Perhaps they just figured that it’s in everyone’s interests to resolve a facial challenge sooner rather than later. Perhaps the Obama Administration wanted the case decided in the middle of the Presidential campaign, for reasons of either electoral or litigation strategy. Alternatively, perhaps the recent oral argument in the DC Circuit convinced them that Silberman and Kavanaugh were likely to vote to strike down the mandate and write a better opinion doing so than had the 11th Circuit, making review of the 11th Circuit’s decision more desirable for the government’s side. Or perhaps they shook up the Magic 8 ball, asked if they should petition for rehearing, and it came up, “my reply is no.” It’s hard to say.