Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

steve2470

(37,457 posts)
Thu Mar 29, 2012, 02:27 AM Mar 2012

Closing argument of U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. in the Affordable Care Act case

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-400.pdf

(Pages 79 to 81)

But if I may just say in conclusion that -I'd like to take half a step back here, that this provision, the Medicaid expansion that we're talking about this afternoon and the provisions we talked about yesterday, we've been talking about them in terms of their effect as measures that solve problems, problems in the economic marketplace, that have resulted in millions of people not having health care because they can't afford insurance.

There is an important connection, a profound connection, between that problem and liberty. And I do think it's important that we not lose sight of that.

That in this population of Medicaid eligible people who will receive health care that they cannot now afford under this Medicaid expansion, there will be millions of people with chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease, and as a result of the health care that they will get, they will be unshackled from the disabilities that those diseases put on them and have the opportunity to enjoy the blessings of liberty.

And the same thing will be true for -- for a husband whose wife is diagnosed with breast cancer and who won't face the prospect of being forced into bankruptcy to try to get care for his wife and face the risk of having to raise his children alone. And I could multiply example after example after example.

In a very fundamental way, this Medicaid expansion, as well as the provisions we discussed yesterday, secure of the blessings of liberty. And I think that that is important as the Court is considering these issues that that be kept in mind. The -- the Congress struggled with the issue of how to deal with this profound problem of 40 million people without health care for many years, and it made a judgment, and its judgment is one that is, I think, in conformity with lots of experts thought, was the best complex of options to handle this problem.

Maybe they were right; maybe they weren't. But this is something about which the people of the United States can deliberate and they can vote, and if they think it needs to be changed, they can change it. And I would suggest to the Court, with profound respect for the Court's obligation to ensure that the Federal Government remains a government of enumerated powers, that this is not a case in any of its aspects that calls that into question. That this was a judgment of policy, that democratically accountable branches of this government made by their best lights.

And I would urge this Court to respect that judgment and ask that the Affordable Care Act, in its entirety, be upheld. Thank you.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, General.

*end of excerpt*

Audio HERE.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Closing argument of U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. in the Affordable Care Act case (Original Post) steve2470 Mar 2012 OP
I'm in the middle of listening to today's audio and came across your OP ... Tx4obama Mar 2012 #1
Video would be wonderful. steve2470 Mar 2012 #2
Verrilli, Jr might be happy there was no video golfguru Mar 2012 #3
Agreed Owlet Mar 2012 #4

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
1. I'm in the middle of listening to today's audio and came across your OP ...
Thu Mar 29, 2012, 02:39 AM
Mar 2012

I am very disappointed that we have no video and only audio

I hope that someday soon they will vote to allow C-Span to stream/tape the oral arguments.






steve2470

(37,457 posts)
2. Video would be wonderful.
Thu Mar 29, 2012, 02:53 AM
Mar 2012

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 04:00 AM - Edit history (1)

I would think they could use, perhaps, black and white cameras in fixed positions. I say B&W because it's my impression they require less light. I'm fairly sure color cameras require very bright lights. I think I've read somewhere that they bar cameras because it would "diminish the judicial atmosphere".

eta: I think I was wrong about color TV cameras.

"Light intensity (quantity) is measured in foot-candles (candela) in the United States, or in lux in most other countries. Even in the United States lux seems to be replacing foot-candles. As we've noted, a foot-candle equals about 10.74 lux (or, for a rough conversion, multiply foot-candles by 10 to get lux).

To provide some points of reference:

sunlight on an average day ranges from 32,000 to 100,000 lux

TV studios are lit at about 1,000 lux

a bright office has about 400 lux

moonlight represents about 1 lux

starlight measures a mere 0.00005 lux

<snip>

When color was first introduced in TV studios, 300 foot-candles (more than 3,000 lux) of light were required. As newer color cameras were introduced, this level kept dropping.

Today, many on-location shoots are done with as little as 30 foot-candles (about 300 lux) of light. The latest generation of professional video cameras can produce good quality video under less than one foot-candle (less than 10 lux) of light."

http://www.cybercollege.com/tvp029.htm

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Closing argument of U.S. ...