Blogging the world around me.
Coverage of the meetings of the Macon County Board of County Commissioners.
Coverage of the meetings of the Franklin Town Board of Aldermen.
Coverage of the meetings of the Macon County School Board.
Photos from my photoblog.
The curtain lifted this morning on the first act of the three-day drama that is the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known (more colloquially) as just “the health care statute” and (mostly) by opponents “Obamacare.” And what a scene it was. Outside, protesters gathered with megaphones, while inside the courtroom the reporters craned their necks to spot politicians and other influential Washingtonians in the gallery.Source: SCOTUSblog: Anti-Injunction Act oral argument: In Plain English
The procedural issue before the Court in today’s argument was whether an obscure Reconstruction-era law, the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), would bar the Court from even considering the merits of the question that most people regard as the main event of the health care litigation: the constitutionality of the ACA’s requirement that virtually all Americans obtain health insurance by January 1, 2014 or face a penalty.
The issue comes up because the AIA prohibits lawsuits to challenge a tax until the tax has actually been assessed; the penalty for the failure to obtain insurance in the health care statute is, the argument goes, a tax for purposes of the AIA.
By the time the ninety minutes of argument were over, it seemed likely that the answer to that question is that the AIA will not stop the Court from deciding the constitutionality of the mandate. But if it remains to be seen how the Court will reach this result and move on to consider the mandate on its merits.
TODAY’S ISSUE: The applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) as it relates to the individual mandate’s tax penalty.Source: PPAC Action: Florida v. HHS - What Happened Monday
KEY POINTS FROM THE ARGUMENT: Most of the justices seemed skeptical of the argument that the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the AIA because the mandate is a tax. As Justice Ginsburg noted, “This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it’s successful, they won’t – nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise.” Justice Breyer agreed: “They called it a penalty and not a tax for a reason.”
This morning the Court reconvened to hear two hours’ worth of oral arguments on the question at the heart of the battle over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA): whether the government can require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance by January 1, 2014 or face a penalty. Although this question had long been regarded as the “main event” of the three days that the Court will devote to oral arguments on the ACA, it gained even more significance (to the extent that such a thing is possible) after yesterday’s argument, in which the Justices signaled that they are not likely to let a little-known nineteenth-century law deter them from reaching the merits of today’s question. And after today’s argument, it is not at all clear whether the mandate will survive.Source: SCOTUSblog: Today’s argument in Plain English: Will the mandate squeak by?
KEY POINTS FROM THE ARGUMENT: Several of the justices expressed skepticism about the propriety of the mandate. Justice Kennedy stated that the mandate “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.” Justice Scalia said that a law which violates the principle of limited powers cannot be “proper” within the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. And Justices Roberts and Alito seemed deeply troubled by the government’s inability to articulate a limiting principle for the federal commerce power.Source: PPAC Action: What Happened at Today’s Oral Argument
The Justices who seemed to favor the mandate’s constitutionality did not seem to agree on the basis for sustaining the law. Justice Breyer effectively conceded the challengers’ argument that upholding the mandate would make federal authority unlimited. Justice Ginsburg, by contrast, focused more narrowly on the costs uncompensated care have on the wider health insurance market.
This morning the Court returned for the final set of arguments in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). First up in the morning, for ninety minutes, was the question of “severability” – what part, if any, of the ACA survives if the Court holds that the mandate is unconstitutional? Many people who follow the Court had predicted that this argument could be a largely hypothetical (and therefore boring) one if it seemed clear yesterday that the Court would uphold the mandate. But with the prospect that the mandate will be struck down very real, everyone was now watching this severability argument carefully. And it was far from boring.Source: SCOTUSblog: In Plain English: Is half a loaf better than no loaf?
Paul Clement was back at the podium this morning on behalf of the twenty-six states challenging the ACA, to argue that if the mandate falls it must take all the rest of the Act with it. He began by emphasizing that the government agreed with him on one point: if the mandate falls, so also must two related provisions that require insurance companies to provide insurance to everyone, even sick people, at reasonable rates. But then he took that argument further, telling the Court that it would then need to strike down other provisions that were also related to the mandate. (He listed a series of such provisions in an approach that evoked the old children’s song: “The hip bone is connected to the thigh bone, the thigh bone is connected to the knee bone . . . .”) Because what would be left, he concluded, was merely a hollow shell, the better option would be to strike down the whole law and let Congress start over with a clean slate.
KEY POINTS FROM THE ARGUMENT: While some justices seemed inclined to uphold the remainder of the law, others appeared open to striking the whole law down or to selectively invalidating parts of the law while leaving other provisions untouched. Justice Scalia: “My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute’s gone. That enables Congress to – to do what it wants in – in the usual fashion. And it doesn’t inject us into the process of saying, ‘this is good, this is bad, this is good, this is bad.’” Justice Ginsburg: “[I]t’s a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”Source: PPAC Action: What Happened at Today’s Oral Argument
The Western North Carolina Alliance is inviting the community to join us for the “Renewing Our Roots” spring gathering, to honor and celebrate WNCA’s founding in Macon County.The event will be April 14 in Franklin.Several free family-friendly activities will be offered throughout the day, culminating in a barbecue dinner and live music celebration at the Memorial United Methodist Church where WNCA’s founder, Esther Cunningham, was a member.Mrs. Cunningham, a Macon County native, was 64 years old when she founded the Alliance in 1982. It is the only grassroots environmental advocacy focused solely on conserving Western North Carolina’s natural heritage.She was motivated to create the Alliance by her love of the mountains and forests. She was outraged when the Forest Service considered allowing private companies to explore for oil and gas in the national forest.Mrs. Cunningham pulled together her friends and neighbors, environmentalists and hunters, natives and newcomers in a successful effort to stop that proposal – and eventually to change the way the Forest Service manages its lands. She died last September, at the age of 93.The Alliance has grown from a small group of dedicated volunteers working out of the trunk of co-founder David Liden’s car and Esther’s living room to an organization with offices in Asheville and Franklin, five full- time staff, three part-time staff, and two AmeriCorps volunteers.Renewing Our Roots – Program Details:Daytime Program: Times TBD
Wildflower Hike: Led by WNCA’s Josh Kelly (moderate)
Birding: Walk on the Little Tennessee River Greenway in Franklin (easy)
Canoeing: Travel along the Little Tennessee section of the Needmore Tract near FranklinEvening Program: 5:30-8:30 p.m.
Location: Memorial United Methodist Church, 4668 Old Murphy Road in Franklin
Activities: Barbecue dinner, live music and a presentation by Mars Hill history professor Kathy Newfont, author of “Blue Ridge Commons: Environmental Activism and Forest History in Western North Carolina.” The book features photos and a few chapters on the Alliance’s founding and advocacy in its early days in Macon County.Please join us for this very special event by sending an RSVP to AnnaJane@wnca.org or by calling 828-258-8737.
The curtain lifted this morning on the first act of the three-day drama that is the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known (more colloquially) as just “the health care statute” and (mostly) by opponents “Obamacare.” And what a scene it was. Outside, protesters gathered with megaphones, while inside the courtroom the reporters craned their necks to spot politicians and other influential Washingtonians in the gallery.Source: SCOTUSblog: Anti-Injunction Act oral argument: In Plain English
The procedural issue before the Court in today’s argument was whether an obscure Reconstruction-era law, the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), would bar the Court from even considering the merits of the question that most people regard as the main event of the health care litigation: the constitutionality of the ACA’s requirement that virtually all Americans obtain health insurance by January 1, 2014 or face a penalty.
The issue comes up because the AIA prohibits lawsuits to challenge a tax until the tax has actually been assessed; the penalty for the failure to obtain insurance in the health care statute is, the argument goes, a tax for purposes of the AIA.
By the time the ninety minutes of argument were over, it seemed likely that the answer to that question is that the AIA will not stop the Court from deciding the constitutionality of the mandate. But if it remains to be seen how the Court will reach this result and move on to consider the mandate on its merits.
TODAY’S ISSUE: The applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) as it relates to the individual mandate’s tax penalty.Source: PPAC Action: Florida v. HHS - What Happened Monday
KEY POINTS FROM THE ARGUMENT: Most of the justices seemed skeptical of the argument that the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the AIA because the mandate is a tax. As Justice Ginsburg noted, “This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it’s successful, they won’t – nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise.” Justice Breyer agreed: “They called it a penalty and not a tax for a reason.”
This morning the Court reconvened to hear two hours’ worth of oral arguments on the question at the heart of the battle over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA): whether the government can require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance by January 1, 2014 or face a penalty. Although this question had long been regarded as the “main event” of the three days that the Court will devote to oral arguments on the ACA, it gained even more significance (to the extent that such a thing is possible) after yesterday’s argument, in which the Justices signaled that they are not likely to let a little-known nineteenth-century law deter them from reaching the merits of today’s question. And after today’s argument, it is not at all clear whether the mandate will survive.Source: SCOTUSblog: Today’s argument in Plain English: Will the mandate squeak by?
KEY POINTS FROM THE ARGUMENT: Several of the justices expressed skepticism about the propriety of the mandate. Justice Kennedy stated that the mandate “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.” Justice Scalia said that a law which violates the principle of limited powers cannot be “proper” within the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. And Justices Roberts and Alito seemed deeply troubled by the government’s inability to articulate a limiting principle for the federal commerce power.Source: PPAC Action: What Happened at Today’s Oral Argument
The Justices who seemed to favor the mandate’s constitutionality did not seem to agree on the basis for sustaining the law. Justice Breyer effectively conceded the challengers’ argument that upholding the mandate would make federal authority unlimited. Justice Ginsburg, by contrast, focused more narrowly on the costs uncompensated care have on the wider health insurance market.
What I’ve said in this campaign is that if you look at the record on a lot of issues, I’ve taken a consistent approach throughout the course of my career. I believe in these fundamental freedom and the way we solve problems in America. And there are many on the Republican side of aisle who don’t…
That’s the sort of the approach. That’s the differentiation, if you will, between me going up against Barack Obama, where there really are real contrasts on the issues, as opposed to a lot of these candidates where it’s a race between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. That’s not how you win.
In the last century, there’s one person, one Republican candidate, who defeated a Democratic Incumbent for re-election. One in the last century. And that was Ronald Reagan. Almost every other time we ran a moderate because we had to win. Republicans and Conservatives were so worried about getting control back that we have to win so we have to nominate someone who can appeal to-
No, you win by giving people a choice. You win by giving the people an opportunity to see a different vision for our country not someone who’s just going to be a little different from the person we have in there. If they’re going to be just a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk on what may be the Etch-a-sketch candidate of the future.”Source: USAA Speech in San Antonio, Texas, transcribed from the first video in this blogpost.
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.Source: CBS News
Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.
“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”
Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”
CROWD FUNDING
If you're of a mind, and can afford it, a dollar a month (or more) from enough people will make a huge difference in improving the quality of coverage of local meetings and events, as well as allowing remote weather stations and weather cams to be deployed throughout the county that you will be able to access online.
Currently, 20 people have pledged $99 a month. This is a tremendous help. Please visit www.patreon.com/MaconMedia for more information on how to contribute.
Businesses can underwrite this coverage by day sponsorships, surplus equipment donations, etc. Inquire at editor@maconmedia.com for more information.
Posts
