Opening the minds of Supreme Court Justices

by YankeeJim | March 27, 2012 at 05:03 am
70 views | 0 Recommendations | 1 comment

Photos

Seeking justice

Seeking justice

see larger image

uploaded by YankeeJim

Ezra Klein discusses the notion that the Supreme Court Justices are likely to be unmoved by the arguments that they hear today because they have already done exhaustive homework and have formed some reasonable analysis already. It is unlikely, Klein reasons, that the lawyers arguing today will be introducing anything new or persuasive that the justices have not already considered.

Ho hum, let the process play out.

The “arguments” are a part of the public education process and political theater.

In the end, to one voter here with one set of opinions, what matters is producing affordable healthcare for all Americans that is equal in access and quality and paid for by contributions from those who can pay at a level suitable to their means.


“Oral arguments are "the first time the Justices get to talk to each other about the case, so it can matter in terms of probing weaknesses and also getting a sense of what types of arguments one would need to deploy to get to five. In that sense it can matter a lot because you can begin to see what you need to do to move your colleagues."”

Advertisement
recommend Sign In or Join to post comments
0
YankeeJim

" Did John Roberts tip his hand? "In a little-noticed exchange Monday, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts may have tipped his hand that he’s entertaining the possibility that the health care law’s individual mandate can be upheld on a constitutional basis that’s different from the one supporters and opponents have made central to their arguments. For over a year now, observers and experts have assumed that the court’s final decision will hinge on the extent of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices could also upend that conventional wisdom, and in a worrying sign for the plaintiffs on Monday, Roberts unexpectedly highlighted one way they could do that. In an exchange with a plaintiffs attorney, Roberts suggested he’s skeptical that the mandate and its penalties can be treated separately and may have opened the door to finding that Congress’ power to impose the mandate springs from its broad taxing power." Brian Beutler in Talking Points Memo."

Via the Washington Post

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from