The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

A slippery slope to counter a strawman. Delicious.

That's not a slippery slope. We've already seen companies take advantage of non-union workforces in this manner.

You have two opposing sides, one that fought for these benefits and one that opposed them. Yet somehow people believe that if you eliminate the side that fought for them, the status quo would be preserved. That does not make any kind of logical sense.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

+1

I will also add that the union leaders are out for power. That means having more union members, which means you protect those that are your own.

I sell to the construction industry and it is crazy how many people are not trained properly, or do not care about their performance. They don't worry about it because the next day, they'll be at another jobsite pulling down some cash.

Heck, even some of the things we say the big bad evil corporations would take away (like safety equipment) if unions went away, would not be used by the workers anyway. Many things are only used on jobsites due to union regulations. It's nuts.

Oh yes, the union leaders aren't much better than the lazy union slugs they try and protect. I was in a union for about 6 years when I worked at PacBell/SBC/at&t (and whatever other names we went by in that time period) and other than the two that I can count on my one hand, the rest were horrible.

You nailed it. There's no repercussions for being a crappy union employee. Eventually, maybe, way down the line, in the somewhat distant future, they may get disciplined or even fired or like you said, just move to another work site.

That's true. Some, not all, completely do their own thing. Not wearing eye protection, not wearing steal toed boots, etc...Why would an employer waste money on stuff like that if their employees won't use it? Well, I'm sure there's OSHA stuff they have to comply with, but, I can see their argument.

[lungs]

I've got a fairly unique perspective in that I get to see among my peers (dairy farmers) how some treat a workforce that has no recourse and labor laws are blatantly violated. Now the reason that happens is that a lot of the workers in my field are not in this country legally and working with fake documents. Put aside that fact for a second because that's another issue altogether.

I recently helped my top assistant's brother find a job after hearing some sickening things he had to put up with at another farm. That farm required 12 hours worth of work for $50 ($4.16/hour, just call it a salaried position and it's all good) with no breaks whatsoever. Time off had to be explicitly granted, otherwise it was a 7 day, 84 hour work week that yielded $350 for the week (not sure if the guy was withholding taxes or not either). If the guy decided that somebody took too long to perform a task, he would dock money from their already measly paycheck.

Now, on the flipside, this guy's turnover is ridiculous. Four people quit in the few weeks this guy worked there, and they were all new employees too. In a way the free market is working. But shouldn't this jackass be punished? Because the people he hires have no recourse whatsoever, he can go on blatantly violating labor laws.

And I'm in the camp that once unions are busted, the next push would be to roll back labor laws. You already see a pretty decent sized segment that wants to repeal minimum wage. We already don't have rules about overtime in agriculture. So on and so forth..... To a degree the free market can work but if the powers that control the free market is colluding to drive down wages on a large scale (which is a big reason why unions formed in the first place, no?), there isn't much the working person can do about it. To think that if unions were busted and labor laws were rolled back that the free market would reign and the powers that would be will play nice is nuts. It goes against human nature which is to horde as much wealth and comfort as possible, everybody else be damned.

Don't get me wrong, unions have needed a good kick in the pants for a while. To me it all starts with electoral reform. This whole "money is speech" bullshit gives us the business vs. labor electoral pissing match every single election. Our political system simply boils down to the race by business and labor interests to buy off as many politicians as possible through campaign contributions and PAC funding.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Oh yes, the union leaders aren't much better than the lazy union slugs they try and protect. I was in a union for about 6 years when I worked at PacBell/SBC/at&t (and whatever other names we went by in that time period) and other than the two that I can count on my one hand, the rest were horrible.

You nailed it. There's no repercussions for being a crappy union employee. Eventually, maybe, way down the line, in the somewhat distant future, they may get disciplined or even fired or like you said, just move to another work site.

That's true. Some, not all, completely do their own thing. Not wearing eye protection, not wearing steal toed boots, etc...Why would an employer waste money on stuff like that if their employees won't use it? Well, I'm sure there's OSHA stuff they have to comply with, but, I can see their argument.

To your point though - relying on the government and existing laws to protect things is also FAR more inefficient then relying on the workers themselves. It's already too easy for companies to make a show of complying with federal regulations, or just pay a fine to make the problem go away. Without the actual employees there in the factory/worksite/whatever having the ability to hold the corporation responsible, rampant abuse is basically a certainty (because it will be cheaper than compliance with a toothless and inept regulatory system). Or are we going to beef up the laws and the regulators and spend a shit-ton of money that way?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm still confused. What's the precedent going forward, an opt-out or an opt-in?

This case doesn't set that precedent (though a future court may pluck the dictum and use it to set precedent). So opt-out is perfectly fine - as long as the union gives the non-member employees enough time and oppertunity to opt-out (so a special assessment must have an opt-out period - which in this case there was not).

[gstelmack]

If Unions were awesome, they wouldn't have any trouble getting people to opt-in. Clean up the garbage, and this might not be an issue.

The IDEA of a Union isn't bad, but the IMPLEMENTATION really sucks at a very high percentage right now.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

To your point though - relying on the government and existing laws to protect things is also FAR more inefficient then relying on the workers themselves. It's already too easy for companies to make a show of complying with federal regulations, or just pay a fine to make the problem go away. Without the actual employees there in the factory/worksite/whatever having the ability to hold the corporation responsible, rampant abuse is basically a certainty (because it will be cheaper than compliance with a toothless and inept regulatory system). Or are we going to beef up the laws and the regulators and spend a shit-ton of money that way?

I agree with you as well. There's a happy medium that I think can be found, but, all parties are so rooted in the "old ways" that I just don't have faith that it will happen at all. So for now, the unions do still have a need because there will be those companies that don't have the best interests of their employees in mind and will walk all over them. You see it now, even in union shops. It's what I call the "We ain't cheating unless we're caught" mentality. They'll continue to get away with something until someone complains and then they pay their fine (that they more than likely have a fund for) and go on to their next thing.

Now don't get me wrong, not all companies are like this. However, I see the most likely places of employment to try and take advantage of their workers if unions were abolished, would be places like retail, farm labor (like lungs mentioned), manufacturing jobs, drivers & food workers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If Unions were awesome, they wouldn't have any trouble getting people to opt-in. Clean up the garbage, and this might not be an issue.

Why opt-in when you can get the benefits the union fought for without paying the dues?

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why opt-in when you can get the benefits the union fought for without paying the dues?

Right. Basic economic concept of free-riding at work.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why opt-in when you can get the benefits the union fought for without paying the dues?

Give me a minute to get your answer. Let me go over to the universal health care thread or the welfare thread and read you what Jphillips and DT answer when they take the opposite side on this question.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Give me a minute to get your answer. Let me go over to the universal health care thread or the welfare thread and read you what Jphillips and DT answer when they take the opposite side on this question.

I don't believe in free-riding.

As far as the Healthcare plan...I believe in single-payer.

As far as welfare...welfare recipients pay taxes (sales and other types of taxes). I look at Union dues philosophically as just another "tax type" payment deducted out of your paycheck, not as something that you "earn" and then are forced to give to the union. It's part of the cost of having the job...kind of like the gas that you have to put into your car to get there.

[ISiddiqui]

Were larry, JPhillips, or DT against the Individual Mandate? Otherwise that response makes no sense.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Were larry, JPhillips, or DT against the Individual Mandate? Otherwise that response makes no sense.

I'm against it, but only in the sense that I want single-payer. In the absence of single-payer, ::shrug:: the individual mandate is an imperfect (hopefully temporary) solution.

[molson]

I don't know if it mattered in the Supreme Court Opinion (I really don't know anything about labor law), but isn't there a difference when it's a public union? Everybody's talking about private corporations taking advantage of nonunion workers in the name of profit. Aren't there entirely different issues when it's a public union? Government can take advantage of people too, but it's kind of a different thing. This is why people are against privatizing things, right, because the government will act better since they're not concerned with profit. So aren't public unions less important then?

Edit: Something seems off I just can't put my finger on it - maybe it's liberals freaking out about a government being too powerful and abusing its workers? I would think conservatives would be more pro-public employee union (generally). Or is union law (from the supreme court or any other source) just one-size-fits all regardless of the characterization of the union?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Give me a minute to get your answer. Let me go over to the universal health care thread or the welfare thread and read you what Jphillips and DT answer when they take the opposite side on this question.

Why would their reasoning have anything to do with me? Even if their position is inconsistent with mine (which I don't agree it is), what the hell does that have to do with what I said? I don't agree with everything that other liberals say or do.

This is the second post you've made to me in this thread where instead of actually arguing with what I said you make some pithy 1-2 sentence sarcastic comment that doesn't address what I said at all. Isn't this the same kind of childish level of debate you usually decry when the partisan Republicans and Liberals engage in it?

Now to address your question seriously, I support welfare and universal health care and do not believe it is inconsistent with what I said about union opt-ins. If we were talking about subsidies for those who couldn't afford their union dues, then what you said might make sense, but this would be more akin to someone forgoing American citizenship so they could pay less taxes in another country and still enjoying the benefits of welfare or universal healthcare.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why would their reasoning have anything to do with me? Even if their position is inconsistent with mine (which I don't agree it is), what the hell does that have to do with what I said? I don't agree with everything that other liberals say or do.

You're not a part of the liberal hive-mind?? Did you not get your facebook invite?

(see what i did there? hive-mind = communists)

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Were larry, JPhillips, or DT against the Individual Mandate? Otherwise that response makes no sense.

Good point. And I've actually argued that the ACA would be way worse for the insurance companies if there was no mandate. They would be forced to cover anyone at any time for any condition, even if they signed up the very second something happened. If Obama truly were a socialist, this is what he would've done. The mandate is actually a big gift to the private insurance industry.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Good point. And I've actually argued that the ACA would be way worse for the insurance companies if there was no mandate. They would be forced to cover anyone at any time for any condition, even if they signed up the very second something happened. If Obama truly were a socialist, this is what he would've done. The mandate is actually a big gift to the private insurance industry.

Very true.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why would their reasoning have anything to do with me? Even if their position is inconsistent with mine (which I don't agree it is), what the hell does that have to do with what I said? I don't agree with everything that other liberals say or do.

This is the second post you've made to me in this thread where instead of actually arguing with what I said you make some pithy 1-2 sentence sarcastic comment that doesn't address what I said at all. Isn't this the same kind of childish level of debate you usually decry when the partisan Republicans and Liberals engage in it?

Now to address your question seriously, I support welfare and universal health care and do not believe it is inconsistent with what I said about union opt-ins. If we were talking about subsidies for those who couldn't afford their union dues, then what you said might make sense, but this would be more akin to someone forgoing American citizenship so they could pay less taxes in another country and still enjoying the benefits of welfare or universal healthcare.

I didn't include you in my post so not sure what the diatribe is for. I did address your previous post about how illogical the side you don't agree with was being while in the same post you predicted "seriously curtailed" changes with absoluetly no basis for your claim.

But to your point in the second paragraph it is the same D/R nonsense. On the big ticket items the supreme court rules almost always D/R and the arguements are always the same posters on each side with the only difference being sometimes they are for individual rights and sometimes they side with the government with no logic to why they choose to side one way or the other.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

They would be forced to cover anyone at any time for any condition, even if they signed up the very second something happened.

But they could charge whatever they wanted for coverage, right? No public option. We'll just all end up paying more for the people who had pre-existing conditions.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

I didn't include you in my post so not sure what the diatribe is for. I did address your previous post about how illogical the side you don't agree with was being while in the same post you predicted "seriously curtailed" changes with absoluetly no basis for your claim.

You said I made a slippery slope argument with absolutely no basis for your claim. I responded with my reasons for why it wasn't a slippery slope argument. You chose not to respond to that. Instead you responded to another argument I made by somehow using what you think JPhillips or DT have argued as if that somehow has anything to do with what I said. Are you incapable of actually directly responding to what I say?

But to your point in the second paragraph it is the same D/R nonsense. On the big ticket items the supreme court rules almost always D/R and the arguements are always the same posters on each side with the only difference being sometimes they are for individual rights and sometimes they side with the government with no logic to why they choose to side one way or the other.

You may not like the logic or you might disagree with the logic, but it isn't true that there is none. The world isn't black and white. There are issues where individual rights make sense and issues where collective rights make sense. And I've actually argued in the past in favor of incorporating the 2nd Amendment, which even Scalia and many other conservative justices haven't been willing to do yet.

[JPhillips]

If you don't believe the same answer is correct for every question you're a hypocrite.

[PilotMan]

I really have something to add to this discussion, as I am a member of 1 going on 2 unions. However, I don't like one, and downright hate the other. But, I would never do my job without some sort of a collaborative bargaining group to represent us.

I work in the single most regulated, unregulated industry. The govt sets the the bare minimum standards for me to work. The govt tells the airlines how to work, then taxes them higher than any other industry for the safety of the passengers. US Airlines compete against small, govt subsidized airlines that are oooed and ahhhhed over around the world, where the playing field is hardly level.

Airlines routinely push employees as far as they will legally go. They push beyond the realm of the contract without fear of trouble because the grievance process can take years for each grievance. Our labor negotiations are the biggest joke of all. When the supermarket labor contract expires the news is right there waiting for the workers to go on strike. When the airline contract expires it can take over 5 years AFTER for a strike to happen. There is almost no real threat of a strike, because the president just makes it illegal.

Airlines have followed the plan of bankruptcy as a means of voiding labor contracts, and have lied in court to get what they want. Employees are stripped of benefits, forced to take pay cuts and lose work rules in contracts that might last 7 years or more, while management pockets the difference with big bonuses, raises and guaranteed retirement packages that include lifetime flight benefits around the world.

While there are some airlines without union representation, they are new, and it's really only a matter of time before the employees are driven to representation.

If employees can opt out the whole point of collective bargaining is over. The goal that started in the 80's with Frank Lorenzo will finally be realized where the labor unions will be rendered useless and more and more airline pilots will be paid $21,000/year, while more and more managers will complain that pilots are overpaid.

[Edward64]

I assume the former clerks have inside track, contacts on whats going on in there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...8ZtV_blog.html

A new poll of 56 former Supreme Court clerks finds that 57 percent think the individual mandate will be overturned. That’s a 22-point jump from the last time the same group of clerks was surveyed, right before oral arguments. Back then, 35 percent thought the court would toss out the required purchase of health insurance.

Decisions, Decisions: How High Court Could Rule on Health - Law Blog - WSJ

Scenario #1: The entire law is upheld.

After all is said and done, the high court may conclude—as the majority of lower courts did—that Congress was acting within its powers under the Constitution when it required most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. That provision was at the center of the two-year legal battle, and if it survives, the rest of the law is likely to stay as well.
:
:
Scenario #2: The insurance mandate is struck down, but the entire rest of law stays.

This was the ruling of a federal appeals court in Atlanta last year, and the Supreme Court may choose to uphold it. In this scenario, the high court would conclude that Congress exceeded its powers with the requirement to carry insurance or pay a penalty. But it would judge that provision separable from the rest of the law.
:
:
Scenario #3: The mandate and two related provisions are struck down but the rest of the law stays.

At Supreme Court arguments in March, the Obama administration, fearing the market chaos in scenario #2, argued that the insurance mandate was inextricably linked to two other provisions. Those provisions require insurers to accept all customers and restrict the insurers from charging more based on a person’s medical history. The administration said if the mandate were struck down, the other two provisions should go too.
:
:
Scenario #4: The entire law is struck down.

If the high court concludes that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional, it may agree with challengers that the only path is to invalidate the entire law.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I assume the former clerks have inside track, contacts on whats going on in there.

Poll: Former Supreme Court clerks think the mandate is done for - The Washington Post


Decisions, Decisions: How High Court Could Rule on Health - Law Blog - WSJ

I doubt the former clerks have any better idea than anyone else as to what actually is going on at the court. Court takes a lot of steps to ensure there are no leaks.

Jack Goldsmith: Temple Of Silence | The New Republic

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by lungs

Now, on the flipside, this guy's turnover is ridiculous. Four people quit in the few weeks this guy worked there, and they were all new employees too. In a way the free market is working. But shouldn't this jackass be punished? Because the people he hires have no recourse whatsoever, he can go on blatantly violating labor laws.

He isn't punished because his workers are also breaking laws. So they aren't reporting him because they would likely be deported themselves.

If he were employing US citizens, he'd be shutdown pretty quickly from disgruntled ex-workers.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why opt-in when you can get the benefits the union fought for without paying the dues?

That depends on whether or not you agree with what the union is fighting for. And how much of that you want to line the pockets of the guys running the union vs actually contributing to the cause.

[lcjjdnh]

No health care decision today.

Arizona case released--affirmed in part, reversed in part. Also struck down the Montana SC's Citizens United follow-up in a summary reversal, affirming Citizens United.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

No health care decision today.

Arizona case released--affirmed in part, reversed in part. Also struck down the Montana SC's Citizens United follow-up in a summary reversal, affirming Citizens United.

More on Arizona: Court struck down all parts of the law except the "stop and check". However, it left room for invalidating that part, too, on constitutional grounds, once it is actually interpreted and applied.

[lcjjdnh]

Health care on Thursday.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

More on Arizona: Court struck down all parts of the law except the "stop and check". However, it left room for invalidating that part, too, on constitutional grounds, once it is actually interpreted and applied.

Yeah, the stop and check part wasn't debated on constitutional grounds, just whether it was right for the 9th circuit to prevent Arizona from enforcing that provision while the case was ongoing. They did hint that enforcement based on racial identity would not be constitutional, but it wasn't the time to consider that.

And even though the stop and check part was "upheld" for now, all this means is that Arizona is allowed to check the immigration status of someone they've detained. But by invalidating other parts of the law, Arizona can't even hold someone on that basis alone. It's all up to the feds from that point.

Scalia fired off a very angry dissent. Always a good read. He says Arizona (or other states) would not have joined the union if they new this ruling was coming down.

[JPhillips]

This should be a crime.

Boehner is one of 34 members of Congress who took steps to recast their financial portfolios during the financial crisis after phone calls or meetings with Paulson; his successor, Timothy F. Geithner; or Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, according to a Washington Post examination of appointment calendars and congressional disclosure forms.

The lawmakers, many of whom held leadership positions and committee chairmanships in the House and Senate, changed portions of their portfolios a total of 166 times within two business days of speaking or meeting with the administration officials. The party affiliation of the lawmakers was about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, 19 to 15.

[larrymcg421]

The court also ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for minors violated the 8th Amendment.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This should be a crime.

Absolutely. Couldn't agree with you more.

[cubboyroy1826]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This should be a crime.

Gotta agree with you here. Both sides of the aisle should be ashamed of this. Talk about abuse of power. I know some will think there is not much to this but come on didn't they put Martha Stewart in jail for something no worse than this?

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This should be a crime.

Where did you find that quote?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Where did you find that quote?

I would imagine it's from
Lawmakers reworked financial portfolios after talks with Fed, Treasury officials - The Washington Post

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cubboyroy1826

Gotta agree with you here. Both sides of the aisle should be ashamed of this. Talk about abuse of power. I know some will think there is not much to this but come on didn't they put Martha Stewart in jail for something no worse than this?

Insider Trading = BAD!

Insider Trading by Congresspeople = Oh that's okay

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This should be a crime.

Wow, yes!

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Insider Trading = BAD!

Insider Trading by Congresspeople = Oh that's okay

Isn't that basically every law they pass?

"This is blah blah blah*"

*Does not apply to members of Congress.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I would imagine it's from
Lawmakers reworked financial portfolios after talks with Fed, Treasury officials - The Washington Post

Yep.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This should be a crime.

Yeah, and the funny part is that they won't even be shamed enough to resign (or at least not run for re-election).

Although it does lead to the question of what should an elected official do in that instance. If investments in the stock market are legal, and there is no guarantee (I know...but "all but certain" is still not guaranteed) in something like a stock market...what should they do?

I mean, its not like they have direct control of the stock market. So I don't buy the argument that "they should be working to prevent the collapse of it".

I'd be all for making elected officials remove their stock market investments but short of that...not sure what you can do (though not to be confused with what you can & should vote for instead).

[JPhillips]

I think blind trusts could work for federal elected officials.

[molson]

In an important poll released today, 65% of Americans surveyed said they believed that Obama would be better able to handle an alien invasion than Romney. Which I think is a little higher then the number of people who say they plan to vote for Obama. So there's a decent number of people who are voting Romney, but concede that as far as alien invasions go, Obama's the better choice.

Edit: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...171143465.html

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

In an important poll released today, 65% of Americans surveyed said they believed that Obama would be better able to handle an alien invasion than Romney. Which I think is a little higher then the number of people who say they plan to vote for Obama. So there's a decent number of people who are voting Romney, but concede that as far as alien invasions go, Obama's the better choice.

I demand a link! I don't believe your all-important phoney baloney poll for one minute!

SI

[JPhillips]

I thought it was a joke until I saw the poll on another site. I think it was a National Geographic poll.

For me it would depend on the attitude of the aliens. If they were peaceful I'd trust Obama, but if they were hostile I'd want Romney. Obama would end up like Nicholson in Mars Attacks.

[DaddyTorgo]

What??

It's not a joke????

[sterlingice]

So, anyone want to make Supreme Court guesses today? I might as well throw my hat into this ring.

I think the easy one is a 7-2 (Scalia/Thomas) laugher on the Medicaid funding tied to the states question. A state accepts money and then say "Oh, I don't want to be told how to spend it"? Roberts and Kennedy aren't going to go for that- they'll accept the "if you don't want money, just don't accept it" argument. Scalia is just so off in the weeds at this point and Thomas pretty much does what he does so that's the only reason I think it's 7-2. Alito could go either way but I think he's more likely to side with the majority.

Honestly, I don't think there's much doubt about the next question. Talking to my wife this morning, I had it pegged at 10%. Intrade has it around 25% but I think that's too high. The individual mandate is getting struck down and I think it is 5-4 along strict "party" lines. I could even see this going 6-3 or 7-2 with objections from the liberal side of the bench on it being mandatory.

And the big question of course is: what goes with it? I'm mildly leaning towards only the pre-existing conditions clause being thrown out. I get the impression Roberts likes to keep things slightly lower profile with his goal of smaller 9-0 decisions, if at all possible, and I don't think he wants to upset the apple cart by throwing the whole bill out. He and maybe Kennedy "cross over" and it's a 5-4 or 6-3 with a scathing descent written by Scalia. This one I'm not at all sure on and Supreme Court watchers seem equally conflicted.

Then again, I suppose there's always a chance they punt it and say "we can't rule on this because no tax has been paid yet". But I just don't see them doing that. The court has become so egotistical (probably always has been) that they won't miss their shot to make an impact. Tho I suppose you could play some legal calculus and the conservatives say "if Ginsberg retires and Romney wins, we have a better shot at striking the whole thing down in 2015". But I find that highly unlikely.

I guess we have about an hour or hour and a half to go to find out.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, anyone want to make Supreme Court guesses today? I might as well throw my hat into this ring.

I think the easy one is a 7-2 (Scalia/Thomas) laugher on the Medicaid funding tied to the states question. A state accepts money and then say "Oh, I don't want to be told how to spend it"? Roberts and Kennedy aren't going to go for that- they'll accept the "if you don't want money, just don't accept it" argument. Scalia is just so off in the weeds at this point and Thomas pretty much does what he does so that's the only reason I think it's 7-2. Alito could go either way but I think he's more likely to side with the majority.

Honestly, I don't think there's much doubt about the next question. Talking to my wife this morning, I had it pegged at 10%. Intrade has it around 25% but I think that's too high. The individual mandate is getting struck down and I think it is 5-4 along strict "party" lines. I could even see this going 6-3 or 7-2 with objections from the liberal side of the bench on it being mandatory.

And the big question of course is: what goes with it? I'm mildly leaning towards only the pre-existing conditions clause being thrown out. I get the impression Roberts likes to keep things slightly lower profile with his goal of smaller 9-0 decisions, if at all possible, and I don't think he wants to upset the apple cart by throwing the whole bill out. He and maybe Kennedy "cross over" and it's a 5-4 or 6-3 with a scathing descent written by Scalia. This one I'm not at all sure on and Supreme Court watchers seem equally conflicted.

Then again, I suppose there's always a chance they punt it and say "we can't rule on this because no tax has been paid yet". But I just don't see them doing that. The court has become so egotistical (probably always has been) that they won't miss their shot to make an impact. Tho I suppose you could play some legal calculus and the conservatives say "if Ginsberg retires and Romney wins, we have a better shot at striking the whole thing down in 2015". But I find that highly unlikely.

I guess we have about an hour or hour and a half to go to find out.

SI

Agree on the Medicaid. As for the mandate, I think they either strike it down or punt it. If they see it as a tax, it will be constitutional. But if it is a tax, then they have to respect the AIA and wait until 2014. I think this is best case scenario for the left.

However, I'd definitely put money on those Intrade odds for a flier.

[albionmoonlight]

I actually think that that the AIA argument seems correct. However, this is outside of my area of expertise, and I cannot find any expert who agrees with me on that.