Search for: "Paul Clement"
Results 701 - 720
of 1,392
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2012, 9:56 pm
For example, in the final session yesterday afternoon, the four liberal Justices peppered Washington attorney Paul Clement with a series of questions presumably designed to get Clement to identify when federal government requirements, the spending clause limits, become onerous to the point of coercion.Mr. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 5:00 pm
” Returning for his second argument of the day and his third argument this week, Paul Clement (who presumably has been sipping Gatorade during his marathon stints at the lectern) met a steady barrage of questions from the Court’s four more liberal members. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 3:22 pm
Eric Brown: Did you catch Paul Clement’s discussion of Buckley during yesterday’s argument? [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 2:26 pm
During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia – long admired by conservatives as a champion of judicial restraint – was the most vocal of the Justices in supporting Paul Clement’s argument that the Court should strike down the entire Affordable Care Act, including hundreds of provisions that no one argues are beyond the constitutional power of Congress and bear no possible relation to the individual mandate. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 11:53 am
(Paul Clement). 12. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 11:07 am
The consequence of your proposition, would Congress have enacted it without this provision....That is, Paul Clement's argument — attacking the statute — is that the test of what is severable — what will fall along with the unconstitutional provision — is whatever Congress would pass if it were asked to vote on the bill with the unconstitutional provision extracted. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 9:29 am
As expected, the “liberal” justices pounced on Paul Clement’s central argument. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 8:43 am
After six hours of historic arguments on the health law, the Supreme Court now begins its deliberations. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 7:06 am
Indeed, to the contrary, they are more “proximately” caused: when an individual choose not to buy a domestic car, the “effect” on GM et al. is direct and immediate (and as Paul Clement argued, unemployed workers shift costs to the employed); whereas when an individual chooses not to buy insurance, the “effect” on health-insurers and healthcare-providers if that individual later incurs an unaffordable… [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 4:28 am
And her incredulity is entirely justified, as I explained here a couple of days ago.During the argument, the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, as well as the plaintiff States' attorney Paul Clement, tried repeatedly to tamp down the "Wow" factor by invoking the analogy of the classic ultimatum: Holding a gun to the states' heads and saying "Your money or your life. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 1:30 am
Justice Scalia then makes a joke about how long it is taking Paul Clement to make his second and third points on page 26. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 8:25 pm
UPDATE 1: Paul Clement will attack the expansion of Medicaid. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:56 pm
., and his principal adversary this week, Washington attorney Paul D. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:56 pm
Washington attorney Paul D. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:55 pm
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. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:28 pm
Severability During the morning session, former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing 26 state attorneys general, the National Federation of Independent Business and four private individuals, argued that if the requirement that most individuals purchase minimal essential health coverage or pay a penalty – commonly referred to as the individual mandate – is removed from the law, the remainder falls. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:03 pm
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned attorney Paul Clement about the logic of revoking the entire law. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 12:07 pm
By Tony Mauro The Supreme Court's liberal wing came alive Wednesday afternoon, aggressively questioning former solicitor general Paul Clement on his claim that the Medicaid expansion contained in the Affordable Care Act is an unconstitutional intrusion on state power. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 11:43 am
Kevin Russell reports, following Paul Clement's argument (boldface added): The Court was skeptical that the whole act should fall if the individual mandate is invalid. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 11:28 am
Paul Clement is concluding his rebuttal now. [read post]
