Elizabeth Warren Pushes Back on Bank Prosecution

Ah, Elizabeth Warren - a true hero for the Left! Remember that during a hearing recently she said she worried that "too big to fail had become too big for trial."

See Previous Post:
Snark Lane: Elizabeth Warren Shames Bank Regulators

Then last week, Att. General Eric Holder basically confirmed her worst fear by making one of his usual matter-of-fact milquetoast statement that in actuality was a bit scary, explaining why he just couldn't let prosecutors go after Banks that had destroyed our economy and ripped people off for millions of dollars. Well, if he can't do it, who can?

From Huff Post

...Eric Holder made this rather startling confession in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, The Hill reports. It could be a key moment in the debate over whether to do something about the size and complexity of our biggest banks, which have only gotten bigger and more systemically important since the financial crisis.

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder said, according to The Hill. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

Holder's comments don't come as a total surprise. His underlings had already made similar confessions to The New York Times last year, after they declined to prosecute HSBC for flagrant, years-long violations of money-laundering laws, out of fear that doing so would hurt the global economy. Lanny Breuer, formerly in charge of doling out the Justice Department's wrist slaps to banks, told Frontline as much in the documentary "The Untouchables," which aired in January.

Which made Elizabeth Warren came back swinging:

From Talking Points Memo

Warren demanded answers from a panel of federal regulators as to why the multinational bank HSBC got off with a fine for money laundering for Mexican drug cartels — along with violating international sanctions against several countries, including Iran and Libya — when people caught with drugs go to jail for life.

“No one individual went to trial, no individual was banned from banking and there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC’s activities here in the United States,” Warren said. “So … what does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?”

When her questions were repeatedly dodged by Treasury’s overseer of financial crimes David Cohen and Federal Reserve governor Jerome Powell, it set her off.

“If you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to go to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life,” Warren said. “But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night — every single individual associated with this. I just — I think that’s fundamentally wrong.”

Oh yeah!!!!!!!!! More of this, please, thanks! <3

Court in Ohio Restores Early Voting

This is great news for the Obama Administration, who filed the lawsuit against Ohio and Secretary of State Jon Husted. Judge Peter Economus ruled that the state had no good reason for closing the polls that last weekend before the election. Yay!

Interesting side-note about Judge Economus:

Judge Economus and his father, who immigrated to America in 1916, were featured in a segment of "Gasoline Alley," a nationally syndicated comic strip. The theme of the comic emphasized the spirit of America and the naturalization process that we all hold dear. Judge Economus and his wife, Marie, have three daughters and three granddaughters.

How nice that he is playing a role in making the vote more accessible, too!

Reuters Story

Ohio, a prized swing state in the November6 presidential election between Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, allows voting in person to begin on October 2. But the state cut off early balloting on the Friday before Election Day, except for members of the military, saying that would prevent fraud and give election boards time to prepare for voting.

In granting a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Peter Economus wrote that lawyers for Ohio's Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted failed to "articulate a precise compelling interest" in establishing a Friday deadline for non-military voters.

"On balance, the right of Ohio voters to vote in person during the last three days prior to Election Day -- a right previously conferred to all voters by the state -- outweighs the state's interest in setting a 6 p.m. deadline," Economus wrote.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement that he would appeal the ruling.

My previous posts about Ohio's voter suppression:

Ohio's Secretary Husted Fires Democratic Officials
True the Vote Poll Watchers are Dangerous Vigilantes
State Senator Nina Turner D-Ohio On Fire Over Voter Suppression
Ohio's Racist Voting Agenda on Display

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Upheld

I'm sad about this . . .

Philadelphia Inquirer Story

Even before Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. released his decision, lawyers on both sides of the case had pledged to appeal the ruling.

A petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected within days, if not hours. More legal briefs and courtroom arguments are expected. Others have been eyeing a parallel challenge in federal court.

Simpson denied a request for a preliminary injunction blocking the state from implementing the law, which requires voters to show state-issued identification before casting ballots.

Opponents complained the new law will unfairly bar as many as 1 million Pennsylvanians from the polls. Supporters say it was necessary to cut down on election fraud.

From Think Progress:

Voting rights advocates plan to appeal the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which will likely issue its own ruling before the November election. There is currently an even 3-3 split between Democrats and Republicans on the Court; the 7th Justice, Republican Joan Orie Melvin, is under suspension because of an unrelated corruption scandal.

Since Simpson ruled to uphold the law, Democrats will need one crossover vote to win a majority and strike down the law. Chief Justice Ronald Castille, a moderate Republican from Philadelphia, is most likely to side with the Democrats.

The federal Justice Department is also looking into whether Pennsylvania’s voter ID complies with federal law.

Big Ten Sanctions Against Penn State

Via the LA Times

The Big Ten Conference issued its own penalties Monday to Penn State, banning the school's football team from appearing in the Big Ten championship game for four years and stating the school won't receive any conference bowl revenue during that same span.

That revenue is estimated to total about $13 million, bringing the grand total Penn State has been fined to $73 million.

. . . "The accepted findings support the conclusion that our colleagues at Penn State, individuals that we have known and with whom we have worked for many years, have egregiously failed on many levels -- morally, ethically and potentially criminally," read the statement from the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors.

I guess it could be worse, as the Bleacher Report states:

Penn State was effectively delivered a death knell by the NCAA, but at the least the Big Ten had the decency not to spit on its grave.

NCAA Guts Penn State's Prestige

The NCAA slapped the Nittany Lions with sanctions that will reverberate through College Station for the next four years and beyond. They gutted the revenue earned this year from the Penn State football program, banned the team from bowl games for the next four years, and "vacated" all wins from 1998 through 2011, effectively destroying the legacy of Joe Paterno, who is no longer the "winningest coach in history."

So the football team survives and players can play the game, but the prestige is gone along with Joe Pa's statue, and that's fitting. Why should a team and a university have bragging rights when the so-called "ethical" leaders were nothing but apologists and enablers for a serial child molester?

I find all of it very satisfying, since it puts the priorities of the university back where they should have been in the first place.

Penn Live

Penn State will be banned from bowl games for four years. It will lose 20 scholarships a year for four years. It will pay a $60 million fine -- a year's average gross annual revenue for the football program. That money will be used to fund programs to prevent child abuse. Penn State can't pay that fine with academic money or by cutting other athletic scholarships.

And the Nittany Lions 109 wins between 1998 and 2011 have been vacated. Joe Paterno is no longer the winningest Div. I football coach of all time.

NCAA president Mark Emmert said the NCAA crafted the punishment as a consent decree, which the university has signed. No appeal is expected.

The penalties are meant to carry a message, Emmert says. Big sports he said, have become too big to fail, and in some cases, too big to question.

Zimmerman Sees God's Plan in Murder of Trayvon Martin

George Zimmerman told Sean Hannity that he thinks the shooting of Trayvon Martin is part of God's Plan, so he wouldn't go back and do anything differently. Zimmerman was was released on $1 million bond earlier in July.

Via Transcript from Fox News

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --

Barabara Walters was offered the interview, and even flew to Florida to speak to Zimmerman, but at the last minute he changed the terms:
Via Huffington Post

When Walters and her team arrived in Florida, she said that Zimmerman came in dressed in a t-shirt, rather than a suit. "That should have been my first clue," she said.
According to Walters, Zimmerman said that the plans had changed, and he was refusing to do the interview unless ABC granted him one request. Walters refused to confirm that he had requested a month-long stay in a hotel. "It was a condition that, being a member of ABC News, I was unable to grant," she said.
. . . The drama took a bizarre twist when Walters announced that Zimmerman wanted to call into the show to speak to Walters. "He wouldn't do the interview, but now he has something to say," she said, later adding, "This has been an interesting day, to say the least."
She then pointedly refused to put him on air. "Mr. Zimmerman, if you could not do the interview yesterday, I don’t think we should do a quick one today," she said. "In the future if you feel differently, we will consider it.”

Several attorneys told the Orlando Sentinal that the interview was probably a mistake:

WOFL-Channel 35 legal analyst Diana Tennis. “Mark O’Mara looked unhappy through most of that interview, and how he did not leap out of his chair and throw himself on his client at that moment, I don’t know,” Tennis said. “Just terrible, terrible, unfortunate judgment in the moment,” she added.

WOFL legal analyst Aramis Ayala saw the interview as a gift to the prosecution. “They do have a gift with a red bow on top of it to address his credibility,” she said.

WFTV-Channel 9’s Bill Sheaffer predicted that prosecutors will be prepared to cross examine Zimmerman about statements in the interview. Sheaffer added that Zimmerman’s lack of regret may hurt the shooter the most. “One may conclude from those statements that there is no remorse on the part of Mr. Zimmerman,” Sheaffer said.

On CNN, Sunny Hostin said the interview was very unusual for someone facing second-degree murder. “There’s a lot of objective evidence that, quite frankly, contradicts a lot of the things he said to the police,” she said. ‘I never think it’s a good idea for a defendant to use a strategy giving media interviews. It’s always a bad idea.”

“In Session” correspondent Jean Casarez, also talking to CNN, said it was “amazing” that Zimmerman did the interview. “The credibility of George Zimmerman is truly the entire case,” she said.

Casarez said that Zimmerman’s version of being injured by Martin might help the defense case. She added, however, that Zimmerman’s inconsistencies will determine whether he’s believed or not.

Freeh Fall at Penn State after Report

Complete Report by Former FBI Director Louis Freeh

Philadelphia Inquirer Story

The idea that Paterno paid no attention to the '98 incident "is completely contradicted by the evidence," Freeh said.

In addition to raising doubt about Paterno's statement that he was unaware of the assault, the report contains evidence suggesting the former coach was the key to a decision by top university officials to back away from alerting state authorities to a 2001 shower incident involving a boy.

Officials initially planned to alert the state Department of Public Welfare about the allegation, which would have triggered an official, outside investigation.

But according to e-mails made public in the Freeh report, Timothy Curley, the athletic department director now awaiting trial in the scandal, urged the university to abandon this plan "after talking it over with Joe."

*snip*

The report's sobering contents include a highly critical glimpse of the once-sacrosanct coach's behavior between 1998 and Sandusky's 2011 arrest. Investigators portrayed Paterno as an active participant in an administrative effort to "conceal critical facts" and preserve the reputation of the university's signature athletic program.
By doing so, the report says, Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz displayed "a striking lack of empathy" for Sandusky's victims.

*snip*

Freeh told the story of a Lasch Building janitor who had witnessed a "horrific" Sandusky assault but was afraid he might lose his job if he reported an incident involving the much-admired coach.

"He was afraid to take on the football program, and if that's the culture on the bottom [of the Penn State football food chain], then God help the culture on top," Freeh said.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette story on future Civil Suits by the victims:

. . . Emails uncovered by the Freeh team indicated that Mr. Spanier approved a plan to ask Mr. Sandusky to get "professional help" and that he was concerned about making the university "vulnerable" should Mr. Sandusky's behavior continue. Though he denied knowing that Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley considered reporting the matter to the state Department of Public Welfare, notes from a meeting he attended indicate that was also discussed.

These things don't match up with Mr. Spanier's contention that what he knew about was just "horseplay," said Wes Oliver, a law professor at Duquesne University.
"Based on what we have, there's enough to circumstantially infer that he knew," he said. "If he thought it was just a ... shower after tee ball, you don't recommend a psychologist after that."

Mr. Oliver believes the report could lead to charges against Mr. Spanier for failing to report the matter to authorities or to investigate further. And he believes Mr. Paterno, were he still alive, might have also faced charges, since there's evidence in the emails that he influenced Mr. Curley to not go to DPW.

Jeff Fritz, the attorney for Victim 4, agreed the report lays out evidence that could be used to charge Mr. Spanier. "What is clear is they made a conscious decision to make the wrong decision," Mr. Fritz said. "These weren't mistakes. These were crimes that were committed."

Michael Boni, the attorney for an individual who has been identified only as Victim 1, said he views it as "an admission by Penn State that it's liable to the victims of this cover-up.
"The report makes crystal clear that those four made a conscious, overt decision to not report Sandusky's transgressions," he said. "By not doing it, they brought about a situation where my client and others were abused as a direct result of their action."

The Patriot News has a collection of excerpts from various sportswriters on the Penn State scandal and the so-called "legacy" of Joe Paterno after the Freeh Report. Here are several of the best:

Dave Ruthenberg, Enid Oklahoma News

“The outrage belongs squarely at the feet of Penn State officials, including Paterno, whose family has defended him by proclaiming he didn’t even use email in 2001.
Such a defense actually bears further evidence Paterno had long overstayed his time at Penn State, was out of touch and had become a liability to the program, not to mention the safety of young boys who wanted nothing more than to be around a football program they idolized, only to have their childhoods reduced to haunting memories of horrendous abuse.
It’s also time for the NCAA to step in and take a look. If there ever was a case of ‘lack of institutional control,’ this would seem to be it.
A strong example still needs to be made in the land ironically known as ‘Happy Valley.’ When it comes to protecting kids, there is a far greater principle at stake than protecting a football program’s diminished legends.”

Scott Ostler, San Francisco Chronicle

“Paterno apparently persuaded the group to go easy on old Jerry. The athletic director, Tim Curley, e-mailed the other Sheep, ‘If Sandusky is cooperative, we would work with him.’
Astounding. The Three Sheep, part of a huge flock of JoPa [sic] worshipers, decided that confronting Sandusky rather than turning him in ‘is a more humane and upfront way to handle this.’
Only Paterno knows why he wanted his Three Sheep to call off the dogs. Was it out of compassion for Sandusky, or out of concern that Paterno's program and his legacy might take a hit?
To at least four young victims of abuse, that distinction probably isn't important.
Please, can we never again mention how many wins Joe Paterno racked up or how many libraries he built? The meaningful numbers in his legacy will probably never be known.”

Jemelle Hill, ESPN

"Let's use a reasonable amount of skepticism here. A man with Paterno's power doesn't just relinquish control. Not with something like this. Not when the allegations against Sandusky were so awful and incomprehensible that they could level all those years of goodwill and honor Paterno had built.
Although Curley and Schultz are facing perjury charges, there is a sense now that maybe Paterno was let off the hook.
This is not to say that Paterno deserved to have formal charges filed against him, especially given that the authorities decided otherwise. But what's becoming abundantly clear is that Paterno's image was only what he wanted us to see.”

Buzz Bissinger, Daily Beast

Paterno ran Penn State. We are Penn State? Forget it. Try I am Penn State. He listened to no one, answered to no one. In 2004, when Spanier and the head of the board of trustees reportedly went to Paterno’s house and said it was time for him to retire, he threw them out. The Penn State trains ran on Joe’s schedule in the ridiculous name of football. Yes, he did give $4 million to the school, and no one should ever argue against philanthropy, but charity also is never entirely altruistic: it burnished the avuncular JoePa image, a man above reproach who would never hide or conceal or obfuscate. But the world of Penn State football revolved around Paterno. It seemed inconceivable that in a matter involving someone who had been a loyal assistant coach for 30 years, Paterno would simply step aside and trust the judgment of others, or that others would make a judgment without his input.

It is totally unfair to say that Penn State officials did nothing. They did tell Sandusky he could no longer bring ‘guests’ on campus. There was no way of enforcing it of course, and the humaneness with Sandusky was so effective that he continued to sexually abuse children for another six years.
You can thank Curley for that. You can thank Schultz for that. You can thank Spanier for that. But most of all you can thank Paterno. He was the God of Happy Valley. People scurried and scrambled when he spoke, so you can bet it was he who was the primary driver behind the decision not to report Sandusky to authorities. It was he who on the basis of his own words in his grand jury testimony, gave the false impression that he had placed the matter in the hands of athletic director Curley and then walked away.

And thus ends the so-called legacy of Joe Paterno. The opinion of this blogger is that anyone who defends this man as "ethical" after this needs to read the report again, and then go read the testimony of Jerry Sandusky's victims. They could have been spared a world of pain and suffering, then-now-and in the future if Joe and Company had "done the right thing" and simply called police on Old Jer'. If they had acted like real men. Instead they covered up to be "humane" to their football buddy instead of the innocent children, and for that they deserve whatever they get here and hereafter.

The Supremes Rule on Immigration, Juvenile Parole, and Montana Corporations

Wow - news is still coming in after an intense morning.
You can read my collection of Pre-Ruling Tweets at Snark Amendment

No Health Care Ruling today ~ we must wait till Thursday. *sigh*

Today they ruled on three things:

1. Juveniles cannot be given life in prison without parole. Good all around.

2. The Court refused to hear an appeal from the State of Montana about corporations buying elections, therefore they upheld their previous Citizen's United decision. That's good for Mitt Romney, because as he says "corporations are people, my friends." But the decision will only get the Democratic base more fired up.

3. The biggest deal today - they threw out most of Arizona's state immigration law, except for the right to check someone's papers under "reasonable suspicion." Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be so happy about that, but it's also a win for the Obama Administration because Arizona lost everything else.

Angry scalia dissent to kennedy opinion on az sb 1070. Scalia makes harsh attack on obama dream act order at #scotus.
— Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) June 25, 2012

Read Scalia's Dissenting Opinion on Arizona Here (PDF)

Washington Post Story:

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but upheld other provisions, giving a partial victory to the Obama administration.
The court ruled that Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the United States legally; cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrations to apply for a job; and cannot arrest someone based solely on the suspicion that the person is in this country illegally.
However, the court let stand the part of the law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

CNN ~ Court to Arizona: You Went Too Far

"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, adding that "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law."
Provisions struck down included:
-- Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.
-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.
-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the minority, argued the court's ruling encroached on Arizona's sovereign powers.
"If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state," Scalia wrote in the dissent backed by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

About the Montana ruling, Via UPI:

The challengers to the Montana law, a small group of non-profits and corporations, told the U.S. Supreme Court in their petition that the riot of independent spending following Citizens United is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court majority said there was little difference between the struck-down federal law and the Montana law.
"In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, this court struck down a similar federal law, holding that 'political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation ...,'" the Supreme Court majority said in a per curiam, or unsigned, opinion, Monday. "The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does."
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by the court's three other liberals, dissented.

No More Juveniles Serving Life Without Parole

The high court on Monday threw out Americans' ability to send children to prison for the rest of their lives with no chance of ever getting out. The 5-4 decision is in line with others the court has made, including ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing.
The decision came in the robbery and murder cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who were 14 when they were convicted.

Zimmerman Reenactment of Trayvon Martin's Killing

You can judge the videos below for yourselves, but in my opinion George freely admits that he continued to follow Trayvon Martin after he was told to stop by the dispatcher, even though he says it was to get the "address for the police." Okay, so he was, indeed, following Trayvon to see where he lived, else how would he get the address? It's all semantic and rationalized in George's mind because he is lying about his real intent, which was to "shoot a goon" or whatever. He had a gun in his pocket and was itching to use it on someone he saw as a threat.

There wouldn't have been any physical fight or tussle in the grass if Zimmerman hadn't pursued this boy, who was minding his own business. Aren't all children in this country taught by their parents and schools to fight back if someone attacks them? Come on . . .

New York Times Story:

A collection of audiotapes, a videotape and a signed statement by Mr. Zimmerman were released on Thursday by his legal team, allowing the public to hear for the first time Mr. Zimmerman’s words to the police over the course of several days of official interviews.

. . . the extended conversations between Mr. Zimmerman and the Sanford police also show that detectives, particularly the lead investigator, Chris Serino, raised questions about parts of Mr. Zimmerman’s version of events. The police expressed puzzlement over inconsistencies or hard-to-explain moments in his statements.

Why wasn’t Mr. Zimmerman’s head more profoundly injured from repeated slams to the pavement, Mr. Serino asked. Why did Mr. Martin have only one wound to his hand, he asked. Why did Mr. Zimmerman, who said he was too afraid to roll down his car window when Mr. Martin approached, then get out of the car to follow him, he asked.

And what provoked Mr. Martin’s anger?

“What if, in his mind’s eye, which I can’t get into because he has passed, he perceives you as a threat,” Mr. Serino said, drawing no answer from Mr. Zimmerman. “He perceived you as a threat; he has every right to defend himself, especially if you reach into your pocket to grab your cellphone.”

Supreme Impatience as Possible Verdict on Obamacare Draws Near

I hate waiting for anything - patience is not my virtue! And in this information age with lightning-fast computers and instant tweets, it seems ridiculous to make people wait for weeks to hear the Supreme Court verdict. But this is "how it's done" so we wait. There's almost a sense of impending doom hanging in the air, no matter what the verdict is. I can't even imagine what's going to happen at that moment - heads explode, certainly. People cussing on Twitter and Facebook. Speeches, marches, anger - either side could be ticked off royally. Predictions are running rampant that the mandate will be struck down. What the Supremes will do with the rest of the Health Care Bill is anyone's guess.

UPDATE: It was "Or Nothing" - no ruling on Health Care today! See you next Monday!

NPR: Ruling Could Come Today

Word about which of its remaining decisions the court releases today should come just after 10 a.m. ET. The court's website is here.
We'll be watching for news from the court. So will SCOTUSBlog, which is always quick with updates.

From the LA Times

WASHINGTON -- Television cameras will surround the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, as they did Monday, anticipating something that may, again, not happen.
The momentous healthcare decision could be announced Thursday. Or not. All we really know is that it is extremely likely to be handed down by the following Thursday, June 28, when the court is expected to end its current term.

. . . The decisions are printed inside the ornate 1935 Corinthian-style building, and handed out to reporters as the justice who authored the opinion announces the decision from the bench shortly after 10 a.m. By tradition the senior justice goes last, so healthcare is likely to be the last decision announced on the day it comes down.

Only a few times in modern history have the results leaked ahead of time, once reputedly from a comment by a justice to a reporter, another time from a talkative printer.
The court is not meeting Friday, so if the healthcare decision does not come Thursday, the next opportunity would be Monday.

Daily Beast: How the Supreme Court Ruling Will Move Markets

Most academics are bullish on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the law’s cornerstone. There’s around a “10-to-1” chance of the provision’s survival, said Thomas Maguire, a professor of health economics at Harvard. But the market isn’t as optimistic.
“The market is pricing a 60% to 70% likelihood of the mandate being struck down,” said Michael Gregory, manager of two healthcare funds for an investment firm affiliated with Highland Capital Management LP.
According to six industry analysts and fund managers interviewed by The Daily Beast, Wall Street money believes that the individual mandate, if not the entire law, will be dumped.

Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes Cryptic Comments About Health Care Ruling

Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg made some rather mysterious comments about the Supreme Court ruling coming up in the next few weeks about Obama's healthcare plan. It's so cryptic because she doesn't want to give away the "surprise, so it's anyone's guess what she means by this. And she makes a broccoli joke? Well, I guess she can afford to joke with her pal Tony Scalia when their health care plan is guaranteed by the government. But what happens if Tony and the other Conservatives have "chopped off" insurance for millions of citizens and the peasants take to the streets in chaos? I'm sure the Judges can foresee that scenario and are buying airline tickets out of the country in expectation of a decision no matter which way they rule.

From Talking Points Memo

“The term has been more than usually taxing, some have called it the term of the century,” Ginsburg said. In the next few weeks, the court must decide around 15 cases, including the high profile cases over health care and Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Ginsburg called it “flood season.”
“As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending,” she said. “So it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after.”

Ginsburg cracked a joke about the health care case and the individual mandate. “If the individual mandate, requiring the purchase of insurance or the payment of a penalty, if that is unconstitutional, must the entire act fall?” she said, then offering up the alternative to throwing out the whole law because of the mandate. “Or, may the mandate be chopped, like a head of broccoli, from the rest of the act?”

The reference to broccoli was a jab at critics of the individual mandate, prompting laughter from the liberal-leaning audience. The issue of “severability,” whether or not the rest of the law can stand if the mandate is struck down, is one of many questions the Court will rule on in the health care case. Critics have argued that the mandate would create a slippery slope, ultimately allowing the government to require Americans buy broccoli in the name of public health.

Ginsburg also spent time talking about the importance of dissents, causing Court-watchers to perk up. “I have spoken on more than one occasion about the utility of dissenting opinions, noting in particular that they can reach audiences outside the court and can propel legislative or executive change,” Ginsburg said.

 By Jen Sorenson of Slowpoke Comics