11th Circuit Panel Receptive To Ruling ObamaCare Unconstitutional?

If so, Twitter will literally choke on dic-pics.

Well not literally.

Even though the justices "sound receptive" to the anti-ObamaCare arguments, this is a false tea leaf that gets reported a lot.

Judges questions only hint at their beliefs something like, I don't know, 60% of the time. In other cases, they want to seem fair and solicitous to one side; they want to get the best possible version of that side's argument so they can best reject it in their actual opinion.

Or, they pepper one side with tough questions, but what they're hoping is that that team's lawyers will give them the pretext they want to hold in their favor. Their frustration is sometimes of the nature, "Can't you guys do your jobs right and give me something close to a legal justification to do what it is I want to do anyway? Do I have to have my clerks work the weekend to find the right arguments and precedents that you boneheads missed?"

In the OJ case, the jury wanted to re-hear the limo driver's testimony that OJ did not answer the door for 30 minutes when he arrived, which of course strongly suggests that OJ was lying when he said he was home, because he was out killing Niccole.

"That means they're going to convict him," a guy said.

"No, that means they want to hear the most damning evidence again so they can make up a reason for it not being so damning. They'll acquit," I said.

That said, here are the tea leaves. I admit... these are tasty, sweet tea-leaves.

And yet, I've had crappy tea before.

A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional.

...

And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.

That argument is at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the healthcare law and its mandate that nearly all Americans have health insurance by 2014.

"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.

Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"

If it's framed this way, and the judges are really looking at this way -- how can they let it stand?

Usually "There is no hint anywhere in the Constitution the government has this power" is not followed by "But, sidenote, the government does in fact have this power."

posted by Ace at 03:31 PM

| Access Comments