Supreme Court will hear Obama health care case this term

[UnrepentantLiberal]

Source: USA Today

By Douglas Stanglin

The Supeme court said today it will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Obama health care plan by March of next year. Republicans have called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional since before President Obama signed it into law in March 2010. But federal appeals courts have been split on their assessment.

The court says that among the points it will hear is whether the rest of the health care law could stand if the court should find the individual mandate portion unconstitutional, or whether the entire law would be rejected. The timing means the court will deliver its decision in the summer, only a few months before the 2012 presidential election, USA TODAY's Joan Biskupic reports.

The key legal question is whether the federal government has the right to force most Americans to buy health insurance.

If the justices say no, that would undercut the entire law because so much of its funding depends on the so-called individual mandate.

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/11/supreme-court-will-hear-obama-health-care-case-this-term/1

---

I say it was never Obama's health care law but why quibble?

How often does the Supreme Court strike down recent laws on a partisan basis? It seems like this would set a very bad precedent.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. I can't think of many laws it's struck down on a partisan basis

There were some laws Clinton signed back in the 1990's that were struck down (i.e. line-item veto, gun-free school zone law?) but those bills weren't hyper-partisan and (I think) both of them had some bipartisan support. :shrug: As far as the health care law, I'm not sure that the "problems" with it are egregious enough to necessitate SCOTUS striking it down.

[SoapBox]

8. But you do have the highly partisan, Five Activist Judges, that seem to be doing the bidding...

of the GOPBaggers and Crazies.

They simply cannot be trusted with what is best for ALL Americans.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. On that I would have to agree.

unfortunately. :puke:

[Left Coast2020]

15. According to this court, having healthcare is Unconstitutional.

[pampango]

2. NYT: Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Health Law

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. The development set the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June, in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The court’s decision to step in had been expected, but Monday’s order answered many questions about just how the case would proceed. Indeed, it offered a roadmap toward a ruling that will help define the legacy of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Appeals from three courts had been vying for the justices’ attention, presenting an array of issues beyond the central one of whether Congress has the constitutional power to require people to purchase health insurance or face a penalty through the so-called individual mandate.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from just one decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, the only one so far striking down the mandate. The decision, from a divided three-judge panel, said the mandate overstepped Congressional authority and could not be justified by the constitutional power “to regulate commerce” or “to lay and collect taxes.” The appeals court went no further, though, severing the mandate from the rest of the law.

On Monday, the justices agreed to decide not only whether the mandate is constitutional but also whether, if it is not, how much of the balance of the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, must fall along with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/supreme-court-to-hear-case-challenging-health-law.html

Interesting that the court agreed to hear only the case in which an Appeals Court struck down the mandate, not any of those where the mandate was ruled to be constitutional. That may be a sign of where the Roberts Court is going with this.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

6. So they're deciding on whether you have to buy health insurance

when this law goes into effect?

If this is the case and the law doesn't include a public option and drug companies can still charge sky high prices I'm not sure I disagree with them.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

7. dupe

[Yo_Mama]

11. I think it's because it's the 26 state plaintiff case

There are a huge number of these cases, but this one will allow the SC to at least settle the majority of the questions raised in the majority of the individual cases. They accepted a bunch of questions for review, so it seems like the justices want to deal with this once and put it to bed.

They're taking it pretty early, and that is good news for the backers of the ACA. As this wears on and the holes become more evident in individual cases, the probability of it being tossed was due to rise. The earlier the SC gets it, the higher the probability that they will uphold constitutionality.

Currently the betting is that they will uphold. I wouldn't bet on anything in relation to this.

[DCBob]

3. Likely to come down to how Justice Kennedy sees this.

The one Republican who may vote without a partisan agenda.

[FBaggins]

4. Of course it's his law

Perhaps it wasn't his original plan, but he pushed for it in the end and, of course, signed it into law.

He owns it for better or for worse.

[EC]

5. Well then, I guess it will no longer be a political

issue in the Presidental race since it's in the hands of the court. So shut-up Bachmann and the rest of you shills screaming that you'll "get rid of Obamacare" shut-up.

[samsingh]

10. if this law was struck down

would the public rally in support of the President at election time to bring it back?

there are going to be more supreme court vacancies that will need to be filled so anything can be changed in the near future.

[crazylikafox]

12. When do we start hearing the media report on the reasons why Clarence Thomas should recuse himself

on this case?????

[CBHagman]

17. They've already started.

See the dates on these stories below for information about calls on both Thomas and Kagan to recuse themselves on the health care law.

From The Hill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/142969-democrats-justice-thomas-should-recuse-himself-in-healthcare-reform-case

From The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin


Mother Jones:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/clarence-thomas-health-care-reform-weiner

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/house-democrats-say-justice-th.html

The House Democrats and various progressive groups have been out to get Thomas to recuse himself. I suggest you go the route of writing letters to the editor, posting in blogs, message boards, etc., to get the word out. A call to your rep might be a good idea as well.

[Grins]

13. I'm a bit stunned by this...

...especially after the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just last week.

Conservative Judge Laurence H. Silberman, appointed by Saint Ron of Reagan, rejected the central critique Republican attack on the healthcare law.

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, ...The health insurance market is rather a unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of healthcare services,” they wrote.

The only dissenting opinion came from Judge Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President George W. Bush, who only said the court can’t review the healthcare mandate until it takes effect in 2014, the same position taken by the federal appellate court in Richmond.

So why are they doing this?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. I'd have been more stunned if it did NOT go to the Supreme Court.

Court of Appeals was just a stop on the way. Whoever lost was going to push it higher.

[Yo_Mama]

18. Because they have split districts

As it currently stands, the law has been ruled constitutional in some places and unconstitutional in other districts, and in at least one district, the highest court to hear the case has ruled that it is unconstitutional to rule on the law's constitutionality until 2015 - on SC precedent about taxation challenges. That last is a very reasonable ruling.

This is chaos.

One option for the SC is to pick it up and make the same decision - that it is unconstitutional to rule on its constitutionality until later. Even if they just did that, at least the law would go back to have the same standing in every state.

The SC really is forced to do something at this point - when US district courts are split in a major issue such as this, the role of the SC is to say what the law of the land is. And in one way at least, whatever they finally do decide, it will be a step forward. I think the court very much does not want to have to decide this issue.

[joanbarnes]

14. Only option is Medicare for all.

[DCBob]

19. This will be a partisan vote against the President by at least four of the conservative judges..

Why? Because..

-- it will be an election year.
-- the high profile nature of the health care law
-- the GOP candidates have swarmed on it as a red meat issue.

There is no doubt in my mind the "hard core four" SupremaCons will vote unconstitutional as a jab to the stomach of our President in hopes it will sway the 2012 election to the Republicans. Only Justice Kennedy might have the guts to vote his conscience and join with the liberal leaning justices.