PourMeCoffee: "There will be no live coverage of the Supreme Court's hearing on the constitutionality of Obamacare this week because the Founding Fathers felt cable news was too sensational and only watched Charlie Rose." (from the Morning Jolt)
The Foundry @ Heritage:
Six hours of oral argument will be conducted in four sessions, spread over three days. That’s what the Supreme Court has allocated for the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).
The arguments begin Monday, as attorneys representing 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and a few of its individual members square off against U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli, Jr. and one of his deputies. Other attorneys appointed by the Supreme Court will join the fray on two issues. Here’s the schedule and the line-up for the arguments.
Monday, March 26, 10:00 a.m.
(90 mins. of argument)
THE ISSUE:
Is the challenge to the Obamacare mandate
ripe for a court challenge?
The 145-year-old Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) provides that courts may not hear most cases to block tax collections until the challengers first pay the tax and seek a refund. The individual mandate in Obamacare doesn’t kick in until 2014, and one court ruled that no one may challenge it until they pay the penalty for not buying insurance in 2015. The United States no longer takes that position; it thinks the AIA doesn’t apply to the mandate penalty because it is not a tax. The challengers argue there are four other reasons why the AIA doesn’t apply.
Since the administration agrees with the challengers ... the Court appointed a private attorney—Robert A. Long, Jr.—to argue the other side. Long will present the first 40 minutes of argument. He’ll be followed by Verrilli, who has 30 minutes allotted. Gregory G. Katsas, representing NFIB and the states, will have the final 20 minutes to argue that the AIA creates no obstacle to challenging the mandate.
I'm already confused. Since the two sides AGREE, why are we bothering with this "other side"?
I assume We The Taxpayers are footing the bill for the Court-appointed attorney to represent the "other side." Hey, I've got a money tree out back so it's no problem, but I do wonder what he charges...
Wouldn't you think that since he's representing a non-existent, ostensibly irrelevant position, he would do it pro bono?
Right?
Comments