Powered by TypePad

« Pain With Cain | Main | When In Rome... »

November 15, 2011

Comments

Charlie (Colorado)

Also -- try something subtle as a handle -- you know "Poor Richard" rather than Ben Franklin. Or do "Not Ben Franklin" or something else. The avatar gives the game away, but there's something wrong in stealing the name.

Well, the gravatar thing is a not-very-subtle attempt to divert attention. The reality is the troll is a coward who wouldn't say things like that if easily identified.

Appalled

Benjamin FalseOne:

I do write for my own pleasure. Why shouldn't I...etc, etc

If you are going to cut and paste, cut and paste from the best...

Danube of Thought

A second NY federal judge was supposed to have issued a ruling on Zucotti by now. Anyone heard anything?

It seems awfully strange to me that the plaintiffs could call a particular judge (an ACLU member) to come in and hear the application for the TRO. Every federal court I am familiar with assigns matters to judges on a random basis.

MarkO

NY State Courts. No corruption there.

Ignatz

--A second NY federal judge was supposed to have issued a ruling on Zucotti by now. Anyone heard anything?--

What does a federal judge have to do with tossing a bunch of goldbricks and hobos out of a private park?

Rick Ballard

It's a freedom of poop issue, Ignatz. You can find the right resting comfortably in the emanation of a penumbra of the First Amendment.

Janet

What does a federal judge have to do with tossing a bunch of goldbricks and hobos out of a private park?

Exactly, Ignatz. We were regularly thrown out of the county park at 10 or 11pm in high school. They used the technical term - "closing".

Ignatz

Excellent news.
The only area in which Mitt is not a wishy washy moderate is his iron clad determination to place his name beside Smoot's and Hawley's in the annals of retarded pols who induce world wide depressions.

centralcal

Breaking: NYS Supreme Court Judge Michael Stolman (sp?) rules in favor of New York City in clearing of Zucotti Park

Well, take that Judge Judy!

Ignatz

So it apparently wasn't a federal judge, which makes more sense.

--It's a freedom of poop issue, Ignatz.--

LOL. I'd hate to be the one who had to enforce a gag order on 'em.

Jack is Back!

Regarding Chelsea Clinton's new gig on NBC, a caller to Rush today (last one) thought it was a move based on what happened to Caroline Kennedy,you know. IOW, the Clinton's are taking no chances that Chelsea is a complete dimwit when it comes to talking, you know, and let NBC teach her how to present herself in public, you know. A finishing school for proper elucidation, you know.

Rush also noted that they caught Caroline actually eating at the restaurant where she went to meet Sharpton, you know and a politician nevers lets the public or press see them eating, you know. Even Sharpton wasn't eating at the meeting, you know.

I think its a good theory, you know.

centralcal

You know, I really think, you know, that Rush is, you know, correct.

centralcal

Just wanted to give you a proper "you know" pacing for the future, JiB! You can't just end with "you know," they have to be frequently and randomly inserted.

centralcal

Many conflicting tweets, but I guess the Judge said they can continue to protest in the park, but no tents or sleeping bags.

rse

LUN is a reminder of just what kind of capitalism drives BH and just how invested Congress is in taking care of the sage.

Again that purchase henry notes is an indication of which enterprises are vehicles for statism.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

I was highly resentful and angry at the protests of the sixties and I was a college student and I knew many who took part. As far as I was concerned then, they were childish, naive, and a bunch of show offs who wanted to ruin life for the rest of us.

When I married a career military man, who then became a victim of one of the dirty, disgusting anti-war protests, my feeling really solidified into a these people are despicable dregs of society.

I feel the same way about the OWSers. I am very angry at the mayors. The tax payers are having their businesses ruined, public parks, paid for by taxpayers, are being defiled and defaced, and death and disease are spreading. The businesses, wage givers, tax payers are the ones who should be marching on their city halls, demanding their mayors do their jobs.

And who is behind these protests today? The same damn communist socialist scum who tried to bring this country down 40+ years ago. This is what those scum have spawned either by their loins or in our schools.

GMAX

No tents! OccupyNYSupremeCourt! The outrage, the right to sleep with rats and varmit is enshrined in the Constitution that was written a 100 years ago!

JM Hanes

Appalled:

I thought you might be interested in these observations on the Supremes' possible Obamacare perspectives from Randy Barnett, because he touches on Scalia & the medical marijuana case. I'm not sure why he seems surprised that SCOTUS is going to take up the Medicaid issue when they are clearly planning to address the division between State and Federal powers. Perhaps that's because he's only actively involved in the severability case.

SCOTUSblog a nice digestible assessment of "The Court’s agenda on health care". This case is going to be HUGE, just as a matter of sheer complexity. It sounds like even how the Court picked its way through the issues it would and would not consider within the three individual cases they agreed to hear is unusual, to say the least.

JM Hanes

Janet:

They used the technical term - "closing".

LOL! Have I told you lately how often you brighten my day?

GMAX

How come the clearly written right to bear arms does not mean exactly what it says but the right to assembly is malleable enough to include squatting on land you dont own without a permit? Is this as hypocritical as I think?

Appalled

JMH:

Well, Randy Barnett is surely going to argue a distinction between the medical marijuana case and this litigation. He has done so successfully since 2009 -- he is not going to stop now.

The Court does a very, very serious thing if it overturns Obamacare which will have a definite political effect. The Court, therefore, is going to be very reluctant to do it, unless it finds the consitutional case very compelling. In light of Commerce Cause cases, and the trend line over the years, I don't see the court being that bold. I could be wrong -- we may know more after the arguments are heard, and the judges ask their questions. But I doubt it.

If they do decide against overturning -- I still think the decision will be written by Scalia, and it will be quotable and there will be bright lines established in this part of the law.

Danube of Thought

For those who aren't familiar with it, the in NY the Supreme Court is actually a trial court, not an appellate court.

The plaintiffs could easily have invoked federal jurisdiction had they wanted to, but apparently they preferred the state system because it allowed them to select the judge they wanted.

GMAX

Any powers not specifically enumerated are reserved for the States.

I guess my failure to attend law school means that I cant comprehend the meaning of the drafters in that passage. Or maybe...

jimmyk

"Is this as hypocritical as I think?"

Not at all. Both mean exactly whatever the left chooses them to mean.

Danube of Thought

OK, here's a little detail on the early-morning order, and here's some on this afternoon's ruling. (The latter link has an internal link to the judge's opinion.)

The issue before Judge Stallman was whether Judge Lucy's TRO--which was specifically in force only until the hearing that was scheduled for this afternoon--should be extended. Stallman said no, and that the restrictions imposed by the property owner were reasonable and did not impinge on the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. Duh.

narciso

The previous Judge, Billings, was found by the National Lawyer's Guild, associates of
the 'esteemed' professor MichaeL Ayers

henry

Idiots on the march, with drums (of course), tuba, trombone, & other noise. No uniforms, but a variety of preprinted signs. Lots of TV cameras.

Even a view from the TV helicopter.

This is not the Gov's mansion in Madison, it is his suburban home in Wauwatosa.

TV reporters giddy.

JM Hanes

Appalled:

"The Court does a very, very serious thing if it overturns Obamacare which will have a definite political effect. The Court, therefore, is going to be very reluctant to do it, unless it finds the consitutional case very compelling. In light of Commerce Cause cases, and the trend line over the years, I don't see the court being that bold."

I couldn't disagree more. Everything about the way they have structured this case positively screams BOLD. I don't see how they could possibly have made it any clearer that they see multiple, compelling, fully ripened, constitutional questions at issue here. Their opinion will result in foundational political & economic changes no matter what they decide.

I won't even try to predict where they will ultimately come down, but there's no way it's going to be a modest ruling, when they've started out by tying themselves a Commerce Clause, 10th Amendment-Enumeration, Tax/Spend powers, Jurisdictional Gordian Knot. The only question that doesn't strike me as monumental is severability in the absence of an explicit legislative prohibition. It's a big deal in this case, but easy to remedy in future bills either way.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Another judge has overruled the first judge about vacating Zocotti Park.

But on a somewhat lighter note, at least if you aren't contemplating divorce:

A judge has ordered a divorcing couple to share each other's Facebook and dating site passwords with each other, as part of the discovery process for the divorce proceedings.
narciso

Beyond parody, maybe John Cleese could narrate;


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/occupy-wall-streets-image-problem/248421/#

JM Hanes

Sara:

Proving my mother right yet again! "Don't write down anything you wouldn't want the world to read, because it will."

JM Hanes

DoT: "Duh."

Depressing what a thrill it is when sanity actually prevails, isn't it?

Neo

CBS reported that the judge in the #OWS case said that while there is a right to assemble, there is no right to camp.

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – A judge ruled against the OWS protesters Tuesday, saying they can return to Zuccotti Park but cannot bring sleeping bags, tarps and tents.

In a four-page ruling, Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman said that the protesters’ First Amendment rights didn’t entitle them to camp out in the plaza indefinitely.

Danube of Thought

"Any powers not specifically enumerated are reserved for the States."

Fine, so far as it goes--but it doesn't really go very far. The problem is, the first inquiry is wheher a claimed power is specifically enumerated. And the answer, if you are a liberal--or perhaps even a moderate judge--is that the enumerated power of the commerce clause (together with the necessary and proper clause) permits the mandate.

centralcal

Liking the sound of this from Twitter:

ppppolls PublicPolicyPolling
Going to have some pretty bad numbers for Occupy Wall Street tomorrow...movement not wearing well with voters

NK

JM Hanes-- what do you think about Kennedy and Kelo; he was the deciding vote-- O'Connor of all people wrote the dissent (joined by Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist). I think Roberts and Alito will overcome their aversion to 'boldness' because the Mandate is so grotesque. Thomas is consistent in hiscontempt for Commerce Clause overreach. That leaves Scalia and Kennedy. They came down on opposite sides in Kelo. Do you think Scalia or Kennedy is more pleased on ow their Kelo opinion played out?

MarkO

Doom.

henry

Hmmm. TV on site reporter just said most of Walker's neighbors think the recall marchers are "getting too personal" and should go back to Madison. Blowback from OWS?

The Dems still haven't found anyone to run against Walker if the recall petition drive succeeds.

Danube of Thought

How is the recall polling, Henry?

henry

Walker should be fine, same with Lt Gov Kleefish. Bigger questions on the 4 senators-- Fitzgerald should be ok, Waangard is iffy. I don't remember who the other two are, they are from rural areas somewhere.

narciso

Btw, a point of order, from the JOM clinic, My mother had a abcess from a root canal, that occurred more than a year ago, that
they drilled into yesterday, she's been on antibiotics and stronger pain killers since last time, but it's been more than a day, and she's still in a great deal of disconfort, is that normal.

Benjamin Franklin

Sara; As to your point about the 60's...

Public support is declining, but the violence associated with Occupy is Clair de Lune to the Eve of Destruction 60's. Nevertheless, just as the Status Quo framed teh Narrative then, it has total control, now.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/occupy-wall-streets-image-problem/248421/#

"Meanwhile, the cautionary tale is the anti-Vietnam War movement. By the late 1960s, the Vietnam War was highly unpopular. But incredibly, the anti-war movement was even less popular than the war. The protesters were widely seen as un-American: rioters, desecrators of the flag, and advocates of amnesty, acid, and abortion. The protesters got a "reputation for being elitist, radical, and unpatriotic."

The anti-Vietnam War movement never captured American hearts and minds. When protesters and police battled at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, a large majority of the public backed the police. One poll in 1968 asked people how they felt about the protesters on a scale of 1-100. Fully one third of the public gave the protesters a score of zero. And only one-in-six people put the protesters anywhere on the top half of the scale."

centralcal

Sorry, narciso - have no idea! Never had a root canal. Poor thing.

Extraneus

So Sandusky is prepared to admit to showering with ten year old boys, "horsing around," and resting his hand on their thighs, but stipulates that nothing untoward happened.

MarkO'Gallo/Callo, does the defense's case hold water?

henry

Narciso, I don't know much about abcess, but last year I had some work done below the gum line and was on soup, painkillers and antibiotics for a week. Did the surgeon say what to expect?

narciso

Really, what possessed Sandusky to give that interview, who is his attorney, Lionel Hutz

narciso

Well they say, it's not unexpected to feel pain while the pain killers kick in, but she's still in a fair mount of disconfort, thanks henry & central.

Melinda Romanoff

narciso-

An infection there is very painful. Although I haven't gone through any dental work, other members of my family have had just that scenario. All were the same, very painful.

Chaco might know more, more than likely.

Benjamin Franklin

The Status Quo (Obama and Minions) assist in framing teh Narrative.

Control and Power. It's all they understand. They incite the protestors to violence, then lower the ball pein. SDS saw the handwriting on the Wall.

" Mene, Mene, Tekal Upharsin"

JM Hanes

ccal:

I was just wondering if there had been any recent polling on OWS -- I hadn't noticed any lately and figured the numbers must be dropping. :-)


NK:

I was interested in your suggestion in an earlier thread that, "[T]he 21st Century decision that is regretted by Kennedy (and maybe even Breyer) is KELO!!," and wondered if you were referring to any publicly expressed regrets? That would certainly be encouraging, although I have to admit I find it hard to comprehend how anyone could essentially agree to annihilate the very concept of private property, so I'm at something of a loss in the crystal ball department. Do you have a sense of how susceptible to argument Breyer might be?

Melinda Romanoff

Ex-

I think you've found who "hit" the Sack O' Suds.

Benjamin Franklin

Link for 8:06.

http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies#ixzz1dp02mDDE

henry

Ah, the pain cut through the drugs for a couple days until swelling started to go down. Plus I skipped the vicodin. I hope your mother fells better soon Narciso.

Clarice

Personally, I think it's time to kick some of theFDR court's overreaching to the curb but I don't think SCOTUS must go so far. All sides admit this mandate is unprecedented and distinguishable therefore from even those cases.

Ignatz

--Doom.--

MarkO, are you on anti-depressants?
If not, why not? :)

Extraneus

So the feds have determined that the 'poopers no longer help the Democrats, and it's time to get them off the stage? That's cold.

Benjamin Franklin

No, Ex. Obama was always threatened, always cold.

Benjamin Franklin

There's bigger fish to fry.....

Russia wants to know how much is known about Russia.

http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/1956787.html

Azerbaijan, Baku, Nov. 14 / Trend T.Konyayeva/

Russia urges IAEA to list countries which provided documents for the report on Iran, which 'contains no new details', RIA Novosti quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying on Monday.

"The IAEA Director General's recent report lacks anything new," Lavrov told journalists. "It just reaffirmed that Iran has provided no necessary explanations for so-called 'proposed military developments'."

He noted that the IAEA claims the report was developed based on documents which were submitted by another country.

"We urge the IAEA to name 'another country' so that we could investigate the case," Lavrov said.

Frau Besetzt

"Today, even conservatives like Glenn Beck embrace King and the civil rights movement."
This from a journalist who was "educated" by Howard Zinn. Good grief!
---

Neo, I've fixed it for you:
"CBS reported that the judge in the #OWS case said that while there is a right to assemble, there is no right to camp carp in public".

narciso

Untergang, if you're going fully Spenglerian
that is the way to say it.

henry

Ext, the OWS tools are still useful... as long as they move here, get free WI ID, and tell voter registration they will be here permanently. They are only useless everywhere else.

Gmax

So the feds Democrat big city officeholders have determined that the 'poopers no longer help the Democrats,

If they ever did which I contend is a huge stretch for anyone except a gullible liberal journolister...

Benjamin Franklin

I think henry is smarting, a little.

Frau Besetzt

"Sandusky: "I am not a pedophile"

How about a pederast?

narciso

Maybe the SVR is not what it used to be, sarc:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/8653171/North-Korea-and-Iran-increase-collaboration-on-nuclear-missile-report-claims.html

Melinda Romanoff

I can't remember who posed it, but the OWS would be an excellent, "in situ" counterforce to any Tea Party rallies.

A more stupider "Brown Shirt", if you will.

(Yes, that was on purpose.)

JM Hanes

Clarice:

"All sides admit this mandate is unprecedented and distinguishable therefore from even those cases."

Isn't the central question whether or not it will, in fact, remain unprecedented, if it garners the Court's constitutional blessing?

Frau Besetzt

Sorry about your mother, narciso. Thank goodness for drugs and filial love.

Ignatz

--Going to have some pretty bad numbers for Occupy Wall Street tomorrow...movement not wearing well with voters--

The one constant in life seems to be that trends never stay trends and just when everyone thinks they are permanent is when they end. Just ask a real estate agent.
Just as the Tea Party couldn't rise forever and Barry's negatives couldn't drop forever, so OWS was bound to wear out whatever welcome it had to normal people.
Won't be until mid-summer 2012 that the roller coaster of events will have begun to solidify enough to guess how things will shake out.
Everything until then is chatter, a good portion of it mindless.

Benjamin Franklin

(Yes, that was on purpose.)

And so appropriate, based on your subject matter. lol

henry

Dana, I find it amusing that the unions don't realize voter registration is a public record, the ID confirms who they are, and Facebook plus other state voting records let us prove every fraudulent voter registration here. Several out of state union organizers were caught voting illegally with valid registrations in their home states because they used a hotel as home address when voting in the last recall. It will be easier this time.

Thomas Collins

Clarice, here's my take on SCOTUS's consideration of ObamaCare. You and DOT and others have pointed out the unique nature of the mandate (enforcing folks to engage in the activity of buying health insurance) as opposed to Wickard (in which the farmer at least affirmatively did something (grow his own wheat)). However, as a tax lawyer, I am doomed to look at the world in substance vs. form terms (doomed by a long ago case involving Guy Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Evelyn Gregory, aggrieved taxpayer). In my view, the SCOTUS, beginning in the FDR era, with a few exceptions, has come perilously close to viewing the Commerce Clause as providing the Federales with general police powers. Although Wickard is distinguishable in form from the insurance mandate, I have trouble concluding that it is distinguishable in substance. It is time for SCOTUS to "balls up" and confront whether it thinks the Commerce Clause really does grant the Feds general police powers and whether, as folks such as Professor Wechsler have argued more eloquently than I ever could, the check on Congress is that Congress is selected by the several states.

I recognize that Professor Barnett, among others, have made a compelling technical case as to how the insurance mandate goes beyond the Congressional actions to which SCOTUS has deferred under Wickard type reasoning. If SCOTUS wants to obliterate the insurance mandate based on a formalistic distinction from Wickard, that is their prerogative. But I don't think such a decision would really be honestly confronting the SCOTUS jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause in the last 60 or so years.

Ignatz

Not sure what Justin Timberlake is famous for or whether he's a putz or not but he has been pretty cool with the Marines, including attending one of their balls.

Frau Besetzt

"I think henry is smarting, a little."

But he's never boring.

narciso

More details left out of the 60 Minutes piece;


Schweizer notes that Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope​, of how his credit card was denied by a rental car company. Shortly after, a wealthy political donor named Robert Blackwell paid him a $112,000 legal retainer over 14 months.

Schweizer points out, though, that, “here’s what Obama failed to note in his book, and what came to light only later, thanks to investigative reporting: State Senator Obama subsequently helped Blackwell’s table tennis company receive $320,000 in Illinois tourism grants to subsidize a state Ping-Pong tournament.”

narciso

From this piece;

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47518

Ignatz

--the check on Congress is that Congress is selected by the several states--

Which raises the question, why is there then anything to the Constitution beyond how to select our congress and executive?
If the feds have general police powers then let's be done with it and amend the enumerated powers [and the bill of rights] out of existence.
Better to have the serfs sign their own bondage contracts than have it thrust on them by judges.

Thomas Collins

Ignatz, I think your argument, based on the structure of the Constitution, is the better reasoned view. My point is that SCOTUS has danced around the issue for 60 years, and it is time to close the nightclub, end the dancing and confront the substance of the matter.

Danube of Thought

JMH, can you state your 8:32 question a bit differently? I'm having trouble understanding what you mean.

I think what Clarice is saying is that there is no existing SCt precedent that would require a lower court to uphold the law, and that the SCt could strike this law down without overruling any prior decisions.

henry

Althouse has Walker's ad that ran during the Packer game last night. Guaranteed to get the most eyeballs possible in WI with one placement. Since the guy in Muskego filed recall papers last week (I hope his deer hunt was successful), Walker has been raising unlimited funds to fight the recall and got this ad out ahead of the Dem's main event today.

Clarice

TC, I don't recall the SCOTUS ever overruling ancient precedent when it was unnecessary to do so to decide the case presently before it. Since no one can find n instance where non-activity was seen to be within the Congressional purview, I think the Court need not and probably won't upset Wickard et al should it declare Obamacare's mandate unconstitutional

Cecil Turner

If they do decide against overturning -- I still think the decision will be written by Scalia, and it will be quotable and there will be bright lines established in this part of the law.

I rather doubt the more liberal members of the Court would sign on to Scalia's reasoning on this issue, even if they agreed with the result. But my real disagreement is with the second part of this. Recalling Thomas's Lopez concurrence, he notes the difficulty with the current "substantial effect" test:

While the principal dissent concedes that there are limits to federal power, the sweeping nature of our current test enables the dissent to argue that Congress can regulate gun possession. But it seems to me that the power to regulate "commerce" can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination. [emphasis added]
There is simply no way to uphold Congress's authority to force every individual American to buy a product (whether because it's a "necessary and proper" part of implementing the legislation, or because it has a "substantial effect" on health care regulation), under threat of punitive taxation, and pretend there's a clear limit to Congressional powers. I'm not at all sure they won't uphold Obamacare . . . but if they do, I am quite confident there won't be any "bright line" . . . the test will necessarily remain a murky mess.

centralcal

ha ha ha ha ha!

Ed Henry has arrived in Australia (part of the Press covering POTUS).

He was greeted with a Bobblehead Obama by customs.

Love Aussie humor.

Clarice

jmh, obviously if the court doesn't overrule this we pretty much obliterate what's left of a federal republic, but DoT has rather well explained what I meant:There is no need to undo precedent to overrule here..this is in itself an unprecedented overreach by Congress.

MarkO

Untergang! I have fine German drugs.

If we of the other side blow ourselves up and Obama gets 4 more years, I'll need to visit DoT most every week.

Thomas Collins

Clarice, I agree with you on your analysis in your 9:05 PM post on what SCOTUS has done. In addition, I concede that SCOTUS may very well adopt this approach if SCOTUS decides to croak the individual mandate. However, I think that if SCOTUS so acts, it will be avoiding the real issue so eloquently argued by Professor Wechsler (although I disagree with Professor Wechsler, I consider him to be perhaps the most intellectually honest legal scholar of the 20th century).

I also realize the courts often decide cases on the narrowest possible ground, and that this is grounded on a modest view of a court's appropriate rule. However, I don't think that framework applies here. As I conceded above, Wickard can be distinguished as a technical matter. Whether as a sunstantive matter it really is distinguishable, I am dountful.

By the way, to those non-lawyer JOMers out there, lawyers in the public eye often ground their legal analysis with a view toward the politics of the situation. Professor Barnett has brilliantly framed his critique on the constitutionality of ObamaCare as other than a fundamental assault on the last 60 years of SCOTUS jurispudence. Sometime, however, I think we lawyers get too enamored of distinctions that avoid fundamental issues that courts should confront.

MayBee

I understood JMH to be saying if the court upholds this power of Congress, will Congress use this power again?

Thomas Collins

After all, the case is now before SCOTUS, which is not bound by distinctions binding a lower federal court. If SCOTUS wants to croak the individual mandate on narrow grounds, it is perfectly capable of doing so. However, if SCOTUS concludes that distinguishing Wickard is a distinction without substance, it would in my view be acting more in keeping with the fundamental issues raised by the Commerce Clause.

MayBee

...and then use this case as precedent for the next time?

Cecil Turner

By the way, to those non-lawyer JOMers out there, lawyers in the public eye often ground their legal analysis with a view toward the politics of the situation.

A quick glance at the historical record suggests the Court does as well. In fact, if the mandate weren't consistently polling a landslide against, I'd be guessing 5-4 in favor of sustaining it instead of 5-4 for repeal.

(Disclaimer: my guesses on SCOTUS decisions are running about 50-50 . . . at best.)

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet

I'd give (almost) anything to see the SC argument in the HC cases. Because of SCOTUS blog, the crazy retired or semi-retired lawyers among us will have an unprecedented opportunity to read all the briefs of all the parties and amici before the argument.

Many years ago, I bought a book with all the arguments in Brown and related litigation. It was fascinating.

Charlie (Colorado)

is that normal.

Well, I've got no personal experience, but it sure sounds plausible -- that's bone injury plus inflammation, I'd bet it hurts like blazes.

But let me mention to you the advice I gave my mother last week in the Cardiac Ward: "If you aren' sure, CALL THE DOCTOR!!!"

MarkO

903. You know who you are.

Charlie (Colorado)

I can't remember who posed it, but the OWS would be an excellent, "in situ" counterforce to any Tea Party rallies.

You know, I've heard that from a couple people now, and I don't buy it. It wouldn't take many videos of Ma and Pa Kettle being beaten up by masked anarchists to make sure that the GOP nominee manages a 50-state clean sweep.

Flodigarry

Narciso -

I'm no dentist - but I have had the same experience several times - it may take 24-48 hours for the antibiotics to kick in on the infection. That said, she should feel better soon with an assist from the painkillers.

There are poultices that you can get at pharmacies that might also make her feel a bit better - or a nice warm saltwater gargle.

If all else fails - my Mom's cure was a shot of whiskey (she's Irish!).

I hope your Mom feels better soon. Abcesses are NO fun.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

that the enumerated power of the commerce clause (together with the necessary and proper clause) permits the mandate.

Well let's hope that by the time one reaches the Supreme Court, they've learned to temper their legal rulings with some common sense. Not inspiring to hang a star on since I rarely see much common sense with those schooled in "THE LAW."

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Narciso: Root canals can take several days for the pain to go away. I don't want to scare you, but I had an abscess, taken care of by an oral surgeon, the next day, I could not open my mouth and ended up in the hospital for 3 days on IV antibiotics. Some of the abscess had drained into my blood system and I was quite sick and in terrible pain. This is rare however.

The biggest worry about pain is developing what the call a dry socket.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

They allowed oral arguments to be broadcast by sound only, no TV, before. Was it the BushvGore case, or some other big case, I forget?

Thomas Collins

It could be that the individual mandate turns out to be a side show. If SCOTUS croaks the ObamaCare Medicaid mandates on the states, that would be a federalsim earthquake! This is an issue on which, I believe, there is no conflict among the Circuit Courts (I believe all of them upheld the Medicaid mandates).

Ignatz

--There is simply no way to uphold Congress's authority to force every individual American to buy a product (whether because it's a "necessary and proper" part of implementing the legislation, or because it has a "substantial effect" on health care regulation), under threat of punitive taxation, and pretend there's a clear limit to Congressional powers.--

The argument I've seen presented at Volokh and elsewhere is that the mandate can be upheld while still maintaining a limit on congressional power because the unlimited commerce power would be confined to only those matters which are of a wholly national character and not amenable to state resolution.
I find that faulty on two fronts;
1. It in effect turns the 10th amendment upside down in that all power is vested in the Feds and whatever leftvers exist are parceled out to the states, and;
2. It is not clear at all that other than Medicare or Medicaid there is any part of healthcare that cannot be handled at a state level. If the answer to that is "healthcare is interstate commerce" then we're right back to an unlimited power, because as we've seen, nearly anything can be construed as such.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame