EVERYONE should listen to the ENTIRE oral argument, instead of what the idiot pundits on each side tell us to think. You can listen HERE.
It is VERY important to remember that the Sup. Ct. Justices are NOT speaking in support of one side or another in oral ARGUMENTS. They are simply hashing out the various legal questions that each side must address and getting THEIR arguments on those issues. Justices often question the attorneys regarding positions they, themselves don't advocate. Oral arguments and what each justice says is not necessarily indicitive of their opinions.
So, let's not be such drama queens. The decision is MONTHS away. So, I'd like to say, there's no need for another never-ending outragathon! There's so much to be in a useless tizzy Futile, half-baked rage is all the rage, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. :D
A lot can happen in 3 months. I doubt Kennedy has made up his mind yet, and it sounds like he will be the tiebreaker again. However, I want to emphasis, that I have read oral arguments where you were sure you knew which side a Sup. Ct. Justice came down on, when what he/she was really doing was testing the soundness of the argument they actually favored. These justices are probably going to hash this out many, many times in the next few months, trying to persuade and inform each other on various legal theories. The decision is FAR from in the bag for either side, and THAT is my entire point. No sense getting all freaked over something that hasn't happened yet and may not happen, and you couldn't affect anyway. It's just embarrassing to see people on your "side," or the other, act like freaking idiots all the time. Jeez.
"The Justices will cast their first votes on the mandate’s constitutionality later this week, and there are perhaps three months of deliberations that would then follow."
"If that coalition were to form, it would be likely that Justice Kennedy, the senior among those five, almost certainly would assign the opinion to himself — unless, of course, the Chief Justice ultimately were persuaded to go along so that this historic case did not turn out to be decided 5-4. Roberts was among the more combative adversaries of the mandate, during Verrilli’s argument, but he made considerable efforts to remind the challengers’ lawyers of the government’s key points, perhaps to test how solid their answers to those points would be."
Let's wait and see what the actual decision is, shall we?
The fact is, the government mandates we do all kinds of things, on the local, state and federal levels - like get vaccinations, have car insurance, educate our kids, right down to keeping our lawn mowed in some communities. WE are the government, on EVERY level, and WE have made laws that make our society a better place for all of us. That's all government is.
I think the interesting argument here is whether the commerce clause is what the government should primarily be resting the constitutionality of this law on. Seems to me the general welfare clause makes more sense. But this is why I am giddy that I get to listen to these oral arguments in full. I find this kind of thing utterly fascinating. It's well beyond my education and training as a paralegal, and that of most lawyers in fact. Constitutional law is a VERY specific and difficult area of practice, but a lot of this argument is plain spoken and the concepts are not difficult to understand. It's much more interesting that Keith Olbermann yayaing mindlessly till I want to blow my brains out.