"THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT CASES"
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_400#argument2'target=
My first impression: Elena Kagan is an airhead. What if money were free? As if the Federal Government got all that money from thin air. Yeah, that ought to be the basis for all our decisions.
Paul Clement, arguing against Obamacare, on the other hand, knows his shit. Listen to his summary at the end of the first section, Oral Argument No. 11-400.
I also enjoyed the part where Donald Verrilli expressed how great Obamacare is (lots of free money from the Feds). And then Chief Justice John Roberts said, essentially, "If it's so great, why do you need the club?" That is, why force the states to take the deal when, if it's so great, they would want to? Verrilli couldn't answer coherently.
Donald B. Verrilli Jr: Yes, it was reasonable for Congress to predict in this circumstance that the States were going to -- to take this money, because -- because it is an extremely generous offer of funds: 90-plus percent of the funding.
States can -- can expand their Medicaid coverage to more than 20 percent of their population for an increase of only 1 percent--
Chief Justice John G. Roberts: If it's such a good deal--
Donald B. Verrilli Jr: of their funding.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts: --why do you care?
If it's such a good deal, why do you need the club?
Donald B. Verrilli Jr: --Well, the -- the--
Chief Justice John G. Roberts: It's a good deal, take it.
We're not going to -- if you don't take it, you're just hurting yourself.
It was also telling that the Obamacare supporters could not articulate any limits to government power. That is, if the government can to A, what would stop them from doing B? Nothing, they couldn't identify a guiding principle that allow this but stops short of unlimited power. Such is the all-powerful state that the left wants, freedom be damned.
Oyez also put together a page to summarize the issues surrounding this case:
"The Court and Healthcare Reform"
http://www.oyeztoday.org/healthcare/
