The Motley Monk’s opinion: SCOTUS will decide, 6-3

The Motely Monk says (this guy’s got game):

The Motley Monk’s opinion:

SCOTUS will decide, 6-3, to strike down the individual mandate.

It will be a political decision, throwing healthcare legislation back to the Congress.

Let’s see what happens.

Let the discussion begin….

 UPDATE:

Actually, let the discussion go HERE.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to The Motley Monk’s opinion: SCOTUS will decide, 6-3

  1. disco says:

    I assume he thinks the 6 Catholics will vote against the mandate. Personally I think it will be 5-4 against with the usual split.

    Is sotomayor a catholic? If she went against Barry that would be glorious. I don’t really see that happening though.

  2. Facta Non Verba says:

    The so called experts are predicting a 6-3 decision either way. The logic is that chief justice Roberts will write the opinion. After the oral arguments when the initial straw poll was taken, if the votes were to find the law constitutional, Roberts may have switched sides so he could assign himself the opinion and write it as narrowly as possible. I think, however, it it will be 6-3 the other direction — striking down the mandate and the entire law. I think justice Sotomayer will be in the majority opinion striking down the law.

  3. Kerry says:

    Whether the entire Zeppelin fleet is grounded, or just the Obama-enburg engulfed in flames, the Mighty Kenyan will react with contempt and lawlessness, scorn, misdirection and lies. (One leads with his strengths.)

  4. Ecclesiae Filius says:

    I think 5-4, the usual split with Kennedy voting with the majority. I think Sotomayor would only for against the individual mandate if it were a religious argument. In her questions during argumentation she seemed to intimate a religious liberty exception. But, I think she will vote for it.

  5. PghCath says:

    6-3 upholding the mandate, with the Chief Justice writing for the majority.

  6. cmcoop77 says:

    FR. Z, I hope and pray you’re right

  7. MikeD says:

    The Motley Monk is giving an awful lot of credit to the lawless liberals by predicting that one of them will vote to strike down the mandate. Sotomayor can hardly be considered Catholic.

    I predict a 5-4 vote striking down the mandate and related insurance provisions, but letting the rest of the law stand.

  8. iowapapist says:

    It is impossible to tell. I think that if the act is determined to be unconstitutional it will be 5-4 with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy in the majority. I would agree that if it is 6-3 Sotomayor will be the lone liberal voting to strike it down. It is always possible for a conservative justice to “grow” (i.e. become more liberal-witness Blackmun and Kennedy) and we could see a majority voting to uphold the act. The stakes are high. The experiences of U.K. and Canada with socialized medicine should be enough to thwart the act, but we are an historically illiterate society.

  9. Giuseppe says:

    9-0 upholding court’s ability to decide the case, despite it being a tax issue that should not be litigated until after taxes are collected (i.e. 2015)

    6-3 upholding the individual mandate (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) write the main opinion. However, CJ Roberts and Kennedy concur in the judgment, but differ on the rationale re. the individual mandate — makes it as specific as possible to this case, but are hesitant to universalize it.

    6-3 upholding all of the mediciaid provisions (the lineup as above)

    Dissenting are Scalia, Alito, Thomas. Scalia’s dissent is catastrophic. Alito’s is hyperbolic. Thomas’s is antiquarian. However, put together, all 3 are fascinating reads.

  10. EXCHIEF says:

    I think MikeD has it right

  11. jesusthroughmary says:

    The Government argued that the law as a whole can’t be executed without the individual mandate. So if the individual mandate is struck down, I think the Court will have no choice but to strike down the whole law. However, I will never trust Anthony Kennedy again after Casey v. PP, so I can predict it will be 5-4 one way or the other but I have no idea which way Kennedy will go.

  12. jflare says:

    I don’t know, but I’m nervous.
    I will make this prediction though:
    MILLIONS of people will be watching or listening to whatever coverage they can find.
    I don’t know if they allow live camera or audio coverage inside the Supreme Court itself–I suspect they do not–but I’d bet that a large number of networks will be waiting for word with great anticipation/apprehension.

    Pray for our Justices.

  13. MKR says:

    Whole thing struck down, 5-4.

  14. frjim4321 says:

    It is hard to predict. I keep hoping that the decision will be made purely on constitutional grounds. But SCOTUS has become so politicized in recent years that I no longer hope for a decision based on the law.

  15. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    It is hard to predict. I keep hoping that the decision will be made purely on constitutional grounds. But SCOTUS has become so politicized in recent years that I no longer hope for a decision based on the law.

    That’s a line put out by Dem liberal political hacks to try to influence the electorate. SCOTUS has always been politicized.

    I will, however, say this: There has been major failure of TV political reporting in the past 30 years. Too many of these political hacks–Dem and Repub–are interviewed as if they’re experts. And the Meet the Press (also Face the Nation, and Brinkley Sunday Show) MO has disappeared. Where once there were multiple journalists asking questions of one guest, now it is usually one journalist questioning a guest from either side. Consequently, we are treated to little else than the recitation of predictably boring party line sound bites.

  16. frjim4321 says:

    I would certainly agree that much television news is horrible. However it hasn’t been common for justices to impugn their own integrity by making purely political comments such as Scalia on the President’s recent immigration policy enhancement.

  17. robtbrown says:

    I think SCOTUS will pick at the Health Care Bill.

  18. Sword40 says:

    I am deeply disturbed by the polarization of the parties within the last 10-15 years. There is no longer a possibility of compromise. We are fast approaching another revolutionary period in our history. Whatever way Obamacare is decided, the divisions will split this country even further.

    Our only hope is through prayer.

  19. Philangelus says:

    Set me straight: I thought this was only about the constitutionality of the individual mandate and had nothing to do with the law as a whole…? Therefore even if they strike down the individual mandate, we still need to keep fighting the birth control mandate. Or have I got it all wrong again?

  20. frjim4321 says:

    Sword40 – polarization indeed! Such as the only agenda of the right for four years has been preventing a second term for Obama.

  21. Peggy R says:

    Nervous….here we go….our courts are hard to trust. they are merely men (oh, women too) of course.

  22. Peggy R says:

    frjim,

    W/all due respect, why would the GOP want any Dem president re-elected? And vice versa of course. It’s not personal. Especially, as the policy agenda of O is so egregious in the eyes of conservatives and so contrary to the tenets of this nation, it is important that he not be re-elected. While our nation is not founded on the idea of every man for himself, it is that each man has a right to make his own way in the world. And religious liberty was the first freedom sought by those who came to the new world.

  23. Finarfin says:

    I’m not going to predict. I’m just going to keep checking the news to see what the decision is. However, I have heard that it may well be a 5-4 decision to strike down the mandate, because Kennedy, who seems to have a hard time making up his mind on these issues, will follow the lead of Roberts. I have no clue whatsoever what they might do from there, though I personally think the entire law should be struck down.

    @Philangelus: The entire law is being put to the Court. The case has been broken up into several parts, one part arguing whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional, and another part arguing whether, if the individual mandate is struck down, if the rest of the law should be upheld, or to strike down that too. I’m not sure under what part of the law the HHS mandate is.

  24. Tina in Ashburn says:

    Mandate has been upheld, 6-3, Roberts sides with the Left. Sickening.

  25. Peggy R says:

    God have mercy! God help us! Why did the court do Congress’ job renaming the mandate as a tax. Why didn’t it say you can’t mandate, but you could tax. And you didn’t tax it. So, you can tax if you want…good luck getting it passed. Arggg Roberts.

  26. Finarfin says:

    Well, I just looked it up, and according to FOX news, the entirety of the law needs to be struck down for the HHS mandate to collapse as well. Merely striking down the individual mandate is not enough. I sure hope these justices do just that.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/27/other-mandate-foes-contraception-rule-to-sustain-legal-battle-if-obamacare/

  27. irishgirl says:

    @ Tina in Ashburn: What? Is this true? If it is, then no way!
    Why does no one in public life who calls themselves Catholic ever vote according to the tenets of the Faith?
    This country is going down the tubes, for sure….

  28. Theodore says:

    Mandate struck down but upheld under taxing power 6-3.

  29. The Astronomer says:

    Obama wins….. again.

  30. Legisperitus says:

    Republicans have their election-year issue.

  31. Mary Jane says:

    I just read on CNN that the entire thing was backed by the Supreme Court.

  32. Tina in Ashburn says:

    Actually its 5 to 4 upheld.
    First reports were inaccurate.

    The court’s four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

    Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

    Now we must really and truly subsidize the extermination of humanity through paying for abortion, contraception, euthanasia, sterile single sex marriage. That is really what is at the bottom of this, IMHO.

  33. Tina in Ashburn says:

    arrgh my previous comment went into moderation, I truncated the message here:
    Actually its 5 to 4 upheld.
    First reports were inaccurate.

    The court’s four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

    Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

  34. acardnal says:

    Let’s not panic, the law can be repealed.

  35. Darren says:

    From what I understand… Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy would have struck down the entire act. Roberts swung the court in favor of the act.

  36. SKAY says:

    “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”.
    - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948.

  37. irishgirl says:

    @ acardnal: Let’s hope that it CAN be repealed!
    We’ve got to get elected to Congress people with SPINES who will stand up to Obama and his evil minions!
    God help our nation…..

  38. robtbrown says:

    says:

    I would certainly agree that much television news is horrible. However it hasn’t been common for justices to impugn their own integrity by making purely political comments such as Scalia on the President’s recent immigration policy enhancement.

    Which is of course the line put out by lib news outlets and commentators. Scalia also attacked Congress (an Obama 2012 campaign tactic) for failing to fund adequately federal protection in this matter. Frankly, I find his approach–not to hide behind legal formalism–refreshing.

  39. mamamagistra says:

    Obama re: tax (2009): “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase” (ABC news interview) — watch how they spin that! Surely this in one huge nail in our nation’s coffin.

  40. Finarfin says:

    I’m still reeling from this…

    @Darren: yes, Kennedy & the other dissenters were in favor of striking down the law entirely.

    @Irishgirl: I would say electing Romney would be more helpful. He says that he’ll exempt everyone from the law.

  41. Supertradmum says:

    Obama said last year, it was not a tax. The Congress at some point said it was not a tax. Now it is a tax. This Supreme Court has become an activist court, by changing the law to a tax.

    Unbelievable. And, it is a direct attack on the sovereignty of our Constitutional Federation, as well as on the Catholic Church.

    Now, the States can refuse the money, but not the bill, not the application. I am amazed and saddened.

  42. Centristian says:

    Roberts. Well. Didn’t see that coming. Interesting.

  43. robtbrown says:

    I never understood how SCOTUS could throw out the indiv mandate without also jettisoning the indiv mandate of MEDICARE.

  44. I am moving all SCOTUS discussion HERE.