Clement
The State Exchanges can stand for each state if there was a defeat of the individual mandate. Keeping the aspects of the law will inspire states to move to enact their own individual mandate if that solves the problems of the health insurance companies.
No powers are removed from Congress.
Corn husker kickback if severable does not nullify the entire law. Scalia
Why make Congress do everything all over again? Salvage rather than wrecking job which Clement is requesting - Ginsburg
UNITED STATES V. BOOKER (04-104) 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (click here)
No. 04—104, 375 F.3d 508, affirmed and remanded; and No. 04—105, vacated and remanded.
Buckley v. Valeo (No. 75-436) (click here)No. 75-36, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 519 F.2d 821, affirmed in part and reversed in part; No. 75-437, 401 F.Supp. 1235, affirmed
Kneedler
Scalia states the taxpayer has no standing to challenge. No kidding.
Ginsburg states Congress has standing. Exactly and this bill was passed in entirety when health care was the focus of an election. Does the political will of the people mean anything in an election or does everyone in the USA fall to the damages of the minority when they seek to destroy priorities of the people?
The minority in the Senate and House at this time are well known to be favored to the Plutocracy of the USA. Either the will of the people in which it manifests through elected members matter?
Scalia states Congress processes will have to reconsider this law regardless of the decisions of the court.
Kennedy - Judicial restraint vs. Judicial power
Sotomayor - Move beyond the power issue and into discretion, "What should guide the court discretion?"
Scalia declares he does not have to read the entire law due to the Eight Amendment. Joke. The 8th Amendment prevents cruel and unusual punishment.
Kneedler - A matter of statutory interpretation.
Kneedler - Minimum services provision is the heart of the law.
Alito - "The Economist" - $350 billion over 10 years
Roberts - If Medicaid Expansion is struck down the rest of the law could stand on its own.
Kennedy - Does the court have the right to impose risk on insurance industry? If we lack the competence to determine risk then the law is inseparable.
Scalia states Booker did not excise the heart of the legislation.
Kneedler - It is a huge act with many provisions and there are many titles do not carry an impact on market pressures.
Kennedy - Severability is difficult when opinion is applied to the peripheral issues.
Printz v. United States (1997) (click here)
...“The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” Finally, although it is the President's job under the Constitution to oversee execution of federal laws, “The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control….”
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority opinion misinterpreted Congress's power under the Constitution. Congress may not usurp the powers that the Constitution reserves to the States, but when it exercises its legitimate constitutional powers, its actions are binding on the States, and State officials must obey congressional instructions....
The interpretations of the court will go on forever and the legislative powers of Congress through elections of the people will be subject to a judges interpretation of the USA Constitution. If there is anything understood about the Robert's Court in majority to date is they act on political ideology and not sound interpretation of the US Constitution, ie: "Citizens United."
Kneedler pointed to the fact there are provisions that will provide better affordability independent of the individual mandate. Roberts and Scalia were annoyed they would have to review the entire law in order to determine that and protested to that reality.
Farr
Kagan reiterates the fact if there are only the less healthy the cost would be irresponsible and the design of the law is to include all citizens to balance the health of the nation.
Scalia states there is no unsustainable portion of federal subsidies. In other words, the subsidies in the law will not bankrupt the federal government.
Farr "essential" in the Commerce Clause is different than the use of "essential" in the ACA law. According to Farr "essential" in the ACA is colloquial.
Justice Scalia asks for clarification of "essential" from a dictionary given everyone is reading the same English in the law.
Farr is looking to Lopez for his 'sculptured' definition of 'essential.'
Facts
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) made it unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe was a school zone. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. (D), a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed and loaded handgun into his high school and was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Act.
Sotomayor states Farr is ignoring the 'findings' of the law to support it. The law states there would be a death spiral without a community rating. There can't be minimum coverage without a 'community rating.'
Kennedy and Sotomayor clarifies with Farr the Court should not state there is going to be a death spiral without the community rating.
Farr the "correct question" is "Does Congress want to go back to the old system rather than risk separation of community rating and minimum coverage. That seems ridiculous to me because minimum coverage is a humane standard, so why would a community rating be needed for minimum coverage if it is the right thing to do? Minimum coverage is being treated as a burden by Farr if there is no community rating. That is nonsense. What exactly then is a subscriber paying for and does any company provide essential services to any subscriber in the USA and what makes any company/cartel believe they can sculpture their own idea of what health insurance should be and leave the entire USA populous without ADEQUATE coverage for detection of disease at an early stage?
It seems to me the 'severability' is a matter of 'scupting' by Farr and therefore the Plaintiffs of this case.
Scalia calls Farr on the carpet to removing the democratic process within Congress if the minimum coverage was removed to leave everything else. Scalia states if the heart of the law is defeated the remainder does not stand. Farr disagrees.
Farr states there would be plenty of reasons to bring young people into the coverage offered. In other words, the statue that supports the priorities of the insurance companies should stand except for individual mandate and minimum coverage. But, it is the opinion of Farr's clients they have omnipotent power to bring in people of a younger age through market attraction.
Clement
Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating is inseparable and both have to be struck down together. If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional then the entire law has to fall. That opinion is one held by Scalia as he doesn't believe he should have to be burdened with a heavy workload in regard to the law.
In interview Mr. Clement believes this legislation is coercive. He also assumes this problem will be addressed again by Congress. The Clinton White House did not address the problem again after it was defeated in a vote coerced by the health care industry.
I would not trust a Republicans legislature with health care law.
If there has to be a word assigned to the Plaintiffs, it is arrogant.
end
