Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
because we have human bodies.
We're all in it. The gov't isn't forcing you to have a human body. You're going to buy healthcare services. They have to be paid for.
The nature of the American insurance industry is unique. It can't be compared to buying cars or broccoli or gym memberships. There is no slippery slope, no loss of freedom.
That's the line justice Kennedy seems to be taking. We'll see if he follows that to an argument in support of the gov't case, and can convince Roberts, who seems to be worried about his court's reputation as being overly politicized.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Interesting observations, but the justices are notorious for being able to play both sides in oral arguments, but return to their own considerations and reasoning when it's time to decide. I think it's risky to get ahead of the game in predicting how any of the justices will ultimately decide this case. This court is not known for reliably 'telegraphing' decisions; they prefer to keep their candor in camera.
Posts: 21,123
Threads: 7,559
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
The "loss of freedom" to quote you is the government mandating we buy it or be fined if we don't. Pretty simple issue.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
samintx wrote:
The "loss of freedom" to quote you is the government mandating we buy it or be fined if we don't. Pretty simple issue.
Actually, the argument above isn't that the government mandates that you purchase healthcare services or not; it's that if you have a human body, you will purchase healthcare services, period. Therefore, the 'mandate' really just regulates activity that is inevitable for everyone. The 'freedom' in this case would be the freedom to spend your money in the market however you like, with no restrictions, and Congress absolutely has the power to limit and regulate that freedom.
Posts: 8,407
Threads: 230
Joined: Apr 2025
samintx wrote:
The "loss of freedom" to quote you is the government mandating we buy it or be fined if we don't. Pretty simple issue.
Yeah, loss of freedom to live on the backs of others and to further the have and have not's divide. Please. cry a different song.
Posts: 12
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2019
How do you defend the indefensible? Obummer's solicitor general is doing a piss-poor job. Thank goodness!
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Grace62 wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
Interesting observations, but the justices are notorious for being able to play both sides in oral arguments, but return to their own considerations and reasoning when it's time to decide. I think it's risky to get ahead of the game in predicting how any of the justices will ultimately decide this case. This court is not known for reliably 'telegraphing' decisions; they prefer to keep their candor in camera.
I didn't make any predictions.
Nor did i say you did. My comment was generically about how difficult it is to see, from comments in arguments, how a case will be decided or written.
Posts: 57,791
Threads: 5,857
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
4
Grace.... interesting assumption, and remarkably false. Given that there are certain religious sects which refuse to use 'modern' 'health services'.
Justices ask great logical questions in their review of the case at hand. It's quite a lot of fun, but as noted above, not necessarily an indication of how the voting will occur.
And, of course, Justice Thomas never has anything to ask. I expect he prefers to simply read about it later.
