White House probably knows outcome of health care case before Supreme Court.

[michaelcobb]

I mean, Obama must have friends in either Kagen or Sotomayer's offices. I read they have already voted on it. It sounds to me like they tossed the mandate but kept the rest. Which in truth makes the law useless. The mandate is what allows insurance to keep people with pre existing conditions.

Is it possible that Anthony Kennedy might live up to his moderate reputation? I know he has regrets about Bush V Gore. Souter said if he had 24 more hours he would of changed his mind.

[dsc]

1. No one knows

the SCOTUS doesn't leak. It just doesn't. We will find out when we find out. Either Monday 18 June or Monday 25 June.

[longship]

2. Separation of Powers?

What you suggest sounds like a good way for a President and a Justice to get themselves impeached and removed from office.

So, I think it's safe to say that your suggestion is likely poppycock.

[SoutherDem]

7. Would a heads up be impeachable?

I think Toni, Tommy, Bobby and Sammy have given at least a wink or grin to Bush.

[michaelcobb]

8. How would they ever prove it?

Obama said recently "We may have to redo healthcare."

[unblock]

10. how on earth would that be even remotely considered an impeachable offense?

for anyone on the supreme court or their clerks, let alone anyone in the white house who merely picks up the phone and listens?

might a justice fire a clerk who leaked a vote? of course.

but where is it written, other than in books about supreme court traditions, that the outcome of their votes be kept secret until the opinions are released? what law would they be violating? what high crime or misdemeanor?


the separation of powers concept doesn't come into play here. that doesn't prevent communication or cooperation.

[longship]

15. Collusion, or interference would be impeachable

I don't think a leak would be. But SCOTUS is notably not a leaking organization. And if Obama approached them, they would not take kindly of that.

The premise of this thread is interesting, but still a bit ridiculous. No President would jeopardize his election by doing what is suggested in the OP.

Obama isn't stupid.

[unblock]

16. there's nothing "colluding" or "interfering" with the someone at the supreme court

giving the white house a heads up.

in fact i would be rather surprised if that never happened. i have to think that at some point, the court felt it was its duty to give the president some advance notice. after all, court decisions can have profound effects on the body of law.

yes, it's conceivable that the president could commit impeachable offenses that involve manipulating court decisions, but that's a far cry from what we've been talking about in this thread.

[longship]

17. The "heads up" never, ever happens.

If somebody at SCOTUS leaked, they would be fired. If it was a Justice, they would be impeached.

And if anybody from Executive contacted anybody at SCOTUS on a case it would result in somebody properly losing their job. That could be interpreted as an attempt at obstruction, and rightly so. They are a fucking court of law. There are strict protocols for talking to them during deliberations. Obama can't just ring up a Justice and ask him/her, "How's it going?"

Why don't people in this thread understand this?

And this is also true of Congress critters.

[unblock]

18. people don't understand this because you're making it up.

first off, we're talking about the court giving the president a heads up AFTER they're done deliberating -- after they've decided the outcome but before they've written and released the formal opinions.

there's absolutely NOTHING in the constitution or the law that prevents any heads up during this interval.

in fact, there's nothing in the constitution or the law that requires the court to write opinions or to delay a formal announcement. and every so often, they do in fact simply announce that the vote was 6-3 or whatever and there is no opinion.

it's ALL court tradition, which is in the court's power to create or change at any moment.

[longship]

20. The tradition is because of the separation of powers

Which is written into the Constitution.

The President has no power over SCOTUS. Any President who didn't honor the separation would find him- or herself a target of a House Judiciary Committee investigation of abuse of power. There would be a special prosecutor faster than the President could say "impeachment".

It could plunge the country into a Constitutional crisis.

Think Saturday Night Massacre.

[unblock]

22. a heads up from the court is to the saturday night massacre as a tap on the shoulder is to murder

would the separation of powers forbid the president from talking to congresscritters as well??

[longship]

26. Fine. Cite an example.

One example where SCOTUS leaked a decision ahead of its official announcement. If you can, I would want to also know what was said in the press and in Congress about it.

I don't think you can find one.

[unblock]

34. we're getting way off topic, but here are some examples:

first, i never said it has ever happened. the question was whether or not it would be an impeachable offense if they leaked it to the white house. in fact, i would say it rarely happens because of supreme court policy and tradition. that doesn't make it an impeachable offense, but it does make it a rare event. clerks and staff know they can be fired for such things.

that said, here are a couple links:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/usa-healthcare-court-leaks-idUSL2E8EU7L220120330

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19790425&id=kXVQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9REEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6742,4623174


i've never seen or heard or read ANYthing about supreme court secrecy being anything other than the court's own policy regarding how it chooses to operate. it could easily decide to immediately make public its votes, and follow up with formal opinions later. it could also choose to stop delivering opinions altogether. it could even decide to always give the president and/or congress the vote outcomes immediately but (try to) maintain secrecy until they released the opinions.

note also that a "leak" doesn't necessarily mean that it was unauthorized. it's entirely possible that the court could decide, unanimously, that it's in the nation's interest to give the president a head's up regarding some decision, so that they can be fully prepared for when the decision is made public. that's never happened as far as i know, but it could in theory and would not remotely be considered an impeachable offense.

[longship]

35. I agree

But if a president attempted to contact the supreme court with the intent of getting a heads-up on a case, that could be interpreted as obstruction. I suspect that's why it is not done.

I suspect that the Supremes do sometimes contact the White House as a courtesy when an important decision is going to be announced. But I also suspect that it is likely something like this: At 1PM this afternoon, we will be handing down our decision in Grlomp v. US. I have no actual knowledge of this, but with the secrecy of the court it makes some sense that is the way it might go down.

Of course, we are all speculating here. But if I were president, I don't think I'd be calling SCOTUS on the phone very often. It's that separation of powers thing again.

Altogether, a interesting discussion.

[Ruby the Liberal]

24. How is advanced notice of a decision an abuse of power?

It isn't going to change the outcome. It is only a heads up.

Do you think the President of the United States gets his news from CNN? Of course he knows this stuff well in advance of the general public.

[longship]

27. First, SCOTUS doesn't leak.

Second, a President who contacted a Justice before a decision is handed down for the purpose of a heads-up could correctly be in big trouble. It would be more than improper. The House Republicans would go ape shit and would get the Judiciary Committee going that very day.

Name an incidence where the Supremes leaked a decision. I can't remember one in my 64 years.

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. That you know of.

Thats the whole point.

Giving the administration a heads up where they don't learn about it on the CBS noon news is not an abuse of power.

[longship]

31. I am glad you agree that there's no evidence for leak claims

And I don't go in for grand conspiracies.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. Conspiracies?

No, dear friend. It is the reality of government, not a "conspiracy". Nothing happens in Washington that the administration (no matter who it is) doesn't know about it before Brian Williams reads it off a teleprompter for Joe/Jane Sixpack like us.

If it makes you sleep better at night thinking that your knowledge is the same as that of the staff of the administration as to all that is going on in the world, then all the more power to you on that. I do not mean that sarcastically, either.

[monmouth]

3. Madam Speaker seems pretty confident.n/t

[SoutherDem]

4. I am not even trying to forecast

I have heard "experts", whatever they are, say everything from completely upheld, completely overturned to a mix.

While I hope it is upheld, nothing would surprise me. Those nine, really 4, have totally lost all concept of reality.

[FarLeftFist]

5. How does it "sound to" you?

[michaelcobb]

6. Love it. Being Republican means never being wrong.

They live in a blissful reality.

[Honeycombe8]

11. The W.H. can probably guess, like we can. The ct is 5-4 conservative. It has voted

that way fairly consistently, so far. So it's not hard to guess how things will turn out.

[kenny blankenship]

25. I would disagree about that.

On one hand, the conservative majority will be hostile to any major policy advanced by the Obama Administration. So it will be overturned.

But on the other hand, this particular policy is a massive and permanent bonanza to powerful financial sector corporations, amounting to a first ever POLL TAX levied by an oligarchical faction of private businesses. A fully Privatized Tax on every head that draws breath within the United States, forever, and all enforcement costs put on the government! That is a Republican Wet Dream. Only preemptive war against the USSR could possibly have wrung a bigger, blinding orgasm from the old elephant's diseased ballsack. So it will not be overturned.

But on the other other hand, only Republicans are allowed to do bestow such favors upon the private sector! The plan is THEIR PLAN: their thinktanks hatched it, their hacks first proposed it and were first to implement it at the state level. This is an intolerable encroachment on their turf. If Democrats take credit for it, they will enduringly reap the lion's share of the Insurance Cartel's baksheesh. So it will be overturned.

But on the other other other hand, if the malignant Privatized Tax scheme imposed on us by the corporate totalitarians were to be overturned, that would leave something public in nature, like Medicare For All, aka Single Payer left as the only alternative that is practical and Constitutionally viable. THAT IS THE GOP NIGHTMARE. So it will be upheld.

There's just no knowing what they'll do.

[magical thyme]

28. +a billion

[Honeycombe8]

33. You're being too logical. Conservatives are against the mandate...

as are many liberals. But mainly, conservatives are against the mandate. It doesn't matter if they would be for it under other circumstances. All that matters now is that they are against it.

Ergo, the conservative position, which the current Supreme Court has almost always followed, is to strike down the mandate.

It's really pretty simple. Like most conservative positions.

[freshwest]

12. Thanks MIRT! And I didn't even alert:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002814284

[MineralMan]

13. I see that you have not survived the powers of MIRT.

You have disrupted poorly, it seems.

[TheKentuckian]

14. Anthony Kennedy is not just a conservative but an arch-conservative

His bogus "moderate" reputation is completely fueled by being on the same bench as the radicals.

It should be assumed that anyone shoveling this massive load of shit is eagerly working to compress the political spectrum and move it right.

[Shrek]

19. The mandate isn't the only means to fund the other provisions

If only the mandate is overturned, Congress could replace it with something else. The guaranteed coverage of pre-existing conditions and other popular provisions could remain in place.

[spanone]

21. probably? that's your assertion?

[GarroHorus]

23. My hope is that the mandate was the contentious part

Hopefully, Kennedy sees the light and keeps the mandate and that vote is 5-4 with roberts joining for the rest in a 6-3.

That's my hope, any way. I could begin to see some light with the SCOTUS if that is the outcome. Otherwise, it's every bit as political as Bush v. Gore and there will never again be anything approaching justice in this country as far as I'm concerned.

[lunatica]

29. Are you talking about the Supreme Court who selected Bush as President?

Sure what they do has National Consequences but so what? No one ever once mentioned any questioning of their selection. No one. It was just accepted by everyone.