Skip to main content

It's been almost a week now.  How long is this going to take?  Do I have to wait 90 days before I find out if the Supreme Court wants the American people to die quickly?  

How long does it take to decide whether kids can be denied health care?  How long does it take to decide if families should lose everything they worked their whole lives for if one of them gets sick?  How long does it take to tell middle aged sick people that they are just going to cross their fingers that they make it to 65?

Maybe they are having a hard time weighing their options?  One the one hand, they really want people to die quickly (or at least broke).  But on the other hand, they don't want to replace George Zimmerman as the most hated people in this country.  I mean, they will be taking away people's lives.  One doesn't win popularity contests doing that.  

Still, if they are going to ruin everyone's lives, the least they could do is get it over with.  I mean, parents are already used to their babies getting health care if they get sick.  If their baby is going to die from being denied health care, then let parents know!  Don't let them have false hope!  Let them know that when their baby dies that it's the fault of the Supreme Court justices!  

4:33 PM PT: I didn't know that it WILL take at least 90 days.  So, we all just have to hold our breath until at least June to find out if we are fucked.  That is just great.  

Poll

What will the Supreme Court Decide?

36%71 votes
63%126 votes

| 197 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  After Bush v Gore and Citizen's United... (10+ / 0-)

    if they strike down the Health Care bill then I think that will be strike 3 and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court will be history.

    i think my cat is possessed by dick cheney

    by Anton Bursch on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:15:30 PM PDT

    •  It Can't Be Illegitimate, It's the Constitution. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Love

      Unless you can think of a way to drive so many conservatives out of the Senate and House that we can impeach and remove a conservative Justice, which is essentially impossible.

      No matter how insane they get, they still are the Constitution short of impeachment or some kind of major government discontinuity event.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 05:32:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They are not supposed to announce a decision (10+ / 0-)

    before June.  I don't know why you'd expect it early?

    I think they will uphold it 6-3

    2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

    by mumtaznepal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:26:37 PM PDT

    •  we have to wait until goddamn JUNE?! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928

      so, we all have to hold our breath for 3 months to find out if we are fucked?

      fuck the supreme court!  i hate them.

      i think my cat is possessed by dick cheney

      by Anton Bursch on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:29:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, The Longer They Take To Decide, The Longer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, Bob Love

        more people are covered.

        If you're really worried, try to move up your appointments for medical care.

        •  i am worried about starting a family now (4+ / 0-)

          i thought this fucking nightmare was over.  we were about to start having kids.  if they strike this down... i may just fucking leave this country.  i do not want my kids to grow up in a nation that let's kids die without health care.  

          i think my cat is possessed by dick cheney

          by Anton Bursch on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:42:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Go ahead and turn on Marvin Gaye (7+ / 0-)

            This thing is going to be upheld 6-3. Good luck on the kids ;-D!
            Thank God for Obama as POTUS. We may never have seen anything like the ACA, and if this is upheld we can inch closer and closer to a Medicare for All model.

            When the operation of the machine becomes so odious that you can't take part,you've got to put your bodies upon the gears;you got to make it stop.Indicate to the people who run it that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all

            by YoungArizonaLiberal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:46:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't raise kids in this country, even if (0+ / 0-)

            we get some nominal health care.  We are in a pitch battle with outright fascists for the soul of this country and I hate to say it but we have been losing for 30 years.  Even if we get this small victory, I did not see the overall trend changing.  This is a dirty, dangerous place with over 300 million guns,  no commitment to K-12 education or affordable higher education, no right to decent vacation or family leave, retirement that is always at risk, a corportist culture  which will turn your children into debt slaves and an incredible disrespect for women and their rights.  If you can get to Canada, that would make more sense and if things get better, then you can come back and if not you can easily move further away if you need to.

    •  That's what Nancy says (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, bythesea

      Do you have any intelligence about it? Who is the con who will swing in your opinion?

      LANDSLIDE bitches!

      by pucklady on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:29:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  End of June. (9+ / 0-)

    No way this ruling is released until the very end of the term.

    Despite the oral argument, I'm still ever so slightly leaning towards them upholding the law 6-3.

    My very close second option is they strike the mandate and follow the Solicitor General's recommendation on what can be severed.

    Significantly less likely third option is the strike the whole law.

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:29:42 PM PDT

    •  Same question I asked mumta above (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mumtaznepal

      Who do you think is the con who will swing?

      LANDSLIDE bitches!

      by pucklady on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:31:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  C.J. Roberts. (5+ / 0-)

        I don't see any way Alito, Thomas or Scalia don't vote to strike at least the mandate and I'm pretty sure they all want to strike the whole thing if they think they can justify it.

        Roberts is very conscious of his job as C.J. being in part to protect the institution of the court, so while I think he'd like to strike the mandate he'd allow himself to be persuaded by Kennedy.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:37:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I Know You Didn't Ask Me But I Think Kennedy & (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mumtaznepal, pucklady, TofG

        Roberts will join the 'liberals' and uphold the entire law.

        The president's invocation of Lochner was a powerful signal to the legal community about the stakes involved here.

      •  Chief Roberts, possibly Kennedy, too. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pucklady, TofG

        2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

        by mumtaznepal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:47:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I should add, either strike option is 5-4 (7+ / 0-)

      Kennedy is the swing vote, Roberts will follow if Kennedy votes to uphold.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:33:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm also inclined towards the 2nd option, mandate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HM2Viking

      out, rest in.

      •  Mandate out means pre-existing ban out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mumtaznepal

        As they are tied together.  

        However if everything else stays in, Pres Obama can run big on how courts allowed ban on pre-existing conditions back and the only legislative fix would be medicare for all - and then force Romney to come up with a new idea - which there isn't one.  

        •  Not legally tied together (0+ / 0-)

          As a practical matter, the insurance companies will scream holy hell if guaranteed issue is retained without mandatory coverage.  But they're technically different issues, so one can go without the other.

          If that does happen, the insurance industry will cry for relief, but that will need 60 votes too.

        •  Obama won't run on that unless we give him (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          COBALT1928

          tons of public and strong progressive support.  I have the feeling that some won't be willing to go all in with him again.  I would.

          Why are we seemingly so embarrassed to want the United States to be a first world country?  Education, health care, earned benefits, secure retirement, technology and innovation.  

          They are not dirty words, but we let the GOP make them so.

          2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

          by mumtaznepal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 06:39:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree on the first option (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WheninRome

      But I think there's a second option where the mandate is struck down as unconstitutional but that is severed from the law with everything else remaining in tact.   I watched the oral argument on severability and I feel like the lawyer who argued that position to the Court was not only the most convincing but seemed to have the Justices most convinced.  

      Check out my new blog: http://socalliberal.wordpress.com/

      by SoCalLiberal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 05:44:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's a good analysis of the undercourt comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Slightly Wobbly

    2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

    by mumtaznepal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:33:07 PM PDT

  •  They will announce the decision (6+ / 0-)

    Exactly when they said they would . . . . Mid-June.

    And it will be upheld. Roberts will use Silberman's decision to decide for PPACA.

    Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

    by jsfox on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:35:37 PM PDT

  •  they already voted (0+ / 0-)

    They will not give Obama a win. No way they uphold 100%, the mandate will somehow be struck down and they will somehow  make it impossible for the bill to survive.
    Can't see how they can declare the whole bill invalid though, Probably be a mixed decision that will mortally would it.

  •  I know everyone's saying Robert's is evil and such (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pucklady, TofG, SoCalLiberal, mumtaznepal

    but seriously...the mandate helps his rich friends. Why would he strike it down? I don't think he's as venomous towards Obama as Scalia so I'm going to vote for 6-3 upheld.

    When the operation of the machine becomes so odious that you can't take part,you've got to put your bodies upon the gears;you got to make it stop.Indicate to the people who run it that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all

    by YoungArizonaLiberal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:43:45 PM PDT

    •  He's also someone who understands (3+ / 0-)

      what it's like to enter the health insurance market eventually.  He was young and healthy when he began suffering from seizures.  

      Check out my new blog: http://socalliberal.wordpress.com/

      by SoCalLiberal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 05:49:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think Roberts is evil (4+ / 0-)

      I very often disagree with him, but he strikes me as a thoughtful guy.

      Now Alito is another matter - he's strong competition for Thomas' title of worst Justice.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 06:40:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, Alito is trash (3+ / 0-)

        Roberts has some redeeming characteristics.   Although to be perfectly honest, he often seems more evil than Scalia.  But maybe not.  It almost depends on the case.  On First Amendment issues, Roberts is almost a leftist in the William O. Douglas mode.  Not quite but he's getting close.  Shows you there's something redeeming about him.  

        Check out my new blog: http://socalliberal.wordpress.com/

        by SoCalLiberal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 07:05:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YoungArizonaLiberal

      "Conservative" for the justices apparently means they don't vote against established power, whether it is the power of the Government or that of a large business. So it is really hard for me to imagine that they'd say health care reform is something the US Government can't do. But I still fear for the worst outcome, the striking down of the law or its key provisions.

  •  Stick a fork in ACA, it's dead. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davis90

    This court has been bought and paid for. They will vote 5-4 to kill the mandate and then since there is no severability clause, they will kill the whole bill by the same 5-4 vote.

  •  There's no way they strike down the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, mumtaznepal, thematt523

    mandate.  Roberts AND Kennedy will vote to uphold it.  I am not even slightly doubtful about this.

  •  5-4 vote to strike down the entire law. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Bacon, ukit, davis90

    The 4 most extreme wingnuts signing an additional opinion stating that the Medicaid expansion would also have been unconstiuttional due to the conditions it attached, but Kennedy not signing that part.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:53:45 PM PDT

  •  NYT's Linda Greenhouse opines 6-3 to uphold (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, SoCalLiberal, mumtaznepal

    in an opinion piece in yesterdays Times.  The gist being Roberts is very aware about his legacy as Chief Justice and the reputation of the court.   There is no way that the four liberal wing Justices will vote against it even in part - so 5-4 against it would be a HUGE political storm and potentially forever harm the court in the eyes of the public.   The mandate is a conservative idea afterall and the insurance co's need the mandate - only reason to find against it is purely political to not give Obama "a win".  

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    •  JJ - I don't buy the Roberts legacy issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davis90

      Roberts will be on the Court for another 20 years. I don't think he cares about his legacy this early in his term of office as Chief.

      The mandate goes down 5-4 and it takes the expensive parts of the ACA with it such as kids up to age 26, protecting people with pre-existing conditions, and community ratings.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 08:26:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kennedy-Kagan/Greenhouse effect (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, SoCalLiberal, mumtaznepal

    Anthony Kennedy is the only conservative Justice on SCOTUS who now and then has qualms about going down in history as a direct descendant of the 1930's reactionary "Four Horsemen," McReynolds, Van Devanter, Butler, and Sutherland. People who have commented on SCOTUS in their books say Kennedy wants to be seen sometimes as "playing to the Linda Greenhouse" NY Times crowd who will write favorably about his legacy when he is long gone. All Alito, Thomas, and Scalia want are accolades from the Limbaugh gang. POTUS put Kagan on SCOTUS to try to bring Kennedy over with her tremendous  persuasive powers. If she takes Kennedy, CJ Roberts will probably join him to make a 6-3 decision to uphold HCR. IMHO, Kennedy already has qualms about Citizens United and, hopefully, doesn't want to be labeled as a member of a 5 person majority that started feeling its political oats from Bush v. Gore on.  In any event, I'm glad that POTUS is "working the SCOTUS refs" over HCR with his recent comments. May God "save us" from this "Honorable" Court. Read Shesol's "Supreme Power," on how the Liberty League was the Tea Party of the 1930's. Their arguments are eerily similar. For more on recent politics, read   this        

  •  Purely as a Layman, I Think Politically They'll (0+ / 0-)

    take down at least the mandate. If it or the entire act are going down, we'll know in June.

    I don't know if the case could give them an opportunity to strike down broader precedents that allow for some aspects of the government social safety net. Looking at them politically, if they can do that, they will, but I'd bet they'd postpone the ruling till after the election so it'd be 2 years that Democrats couldn't do anything electorally in response.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 05:38:06 PM PDT

  •  I think it will be upheld (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG

    5-4 or 6-3.  I did correctly predict Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (even the brilliant lawyers who argued the case did not).  I've had a few other predictions I've made that have come out right.  That said, I'm not predicting that the Court will go this way, it's my inkling.  There's still a donnybrook aspect to all this.  

    I also think it might get upheld 6-1-2 or 5-1-3 with Scalia writing to uphold the ACA but on different grounds.  

    Check out my new blog: http://socalliberal.wordpress.com/

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 05:55:09 PM PDT

  •  It really all depends on Roberts and Kennedy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, davis90

    and if they are going to base their decisions on precedence or on politics. I think if it wasn't an election year, it would definitely be upheld. However, I suspect Roberts especially might be thinking he can strike a blow to Obama's reelection chances and thus his chance to nominate more moderates to the court.

    "As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free"

    by Tim D M on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 05:55:49 PM PDT

  •  I would think striking down the law would help (0+ / 0-)

    Obama, while only striking the mandate could be a wash politically.

  •  6-3 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal

    mandate will be upheld under congress power to tax

  •  Not all members of the SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

    should be blamed.  There are 4 justices who want to do the right thing.  The other 5 do not care about the people especially that reviled Clarence Thomas.   He is getting paid for doing nothing.

    •  I recall one of the pluses mentioned for Kagen (0+ / 0-)

      was her ability to persuade. I hope she and the other liberals are having numerous conversations with Kennedy and Roberts and even the other three cons. I'd like to think the liberals on the court feel free to call out the cons for blatant political judicial activism.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 05:30:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site