SCOTUS to Review Obamacare
As to be expected we have had a mixed bag of rulings in other courts so far, but this one is the one that will count. The primary question is whether the individual mandate is constitutional or not. Many argue, and I agree, that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to mandate people to buy anything. The opposite side is arguing that the interstate commerce clause covers this. Arguments will be in late March.
The Court has asked lawyers to answer four legal questions about the law in their briefs, signaling that it will issue rulings on each of them.
They are:
The individual mandate. The law’s requirement that every individual purchase health insurance is at the heart of the many challenges to the law. The challengers contend that such a requirement is not permissible under the Constitution, because the commerce clause that authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce should not able to compel individuals to purchase a product they do not want.
So far, two appellate courts have rejected this argument, ruling that the mandate is acceptable. One court has sided with the challengers, overturning the mandate.
Severability. When the law was passed, members of Congress said the mandate was essential to make other insurance reforms in the law work. If the justices strike down the mandate, they will have to decide whether that means the law can stand without it, or the whole law must fall.
The one court to overturn the mandate, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, found that the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, and it ruled the whole law should be overturned.
Medicaid expansion: The health care law requires the states to expand eligibility for their Medicaid programs by offering coverage to anyone earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty limit. Critics have said it is an unconstitutional imposition on the states.
Jurisdiction. Judges in two appellate courts have argued that the time is not right for the courts to even consider whether the law is constitutional. They have cited an 18th-century law that prevents individuals from challenging their taxes until after they’ve been assessed and paid.
The justices will have to decide whether the law’s penalty for not buying insurance functions enough like a tax that these rules should apply. If they agree with the argument, lawsuits will be barred until after the mandate goes into effect.
The timing is highly consequential. It means that Obama almost certainly won’t get a chance to name a new court member before the Supremes decide whether the Commerce Clause is an opening through which Congress can force any kind of regulation and mandate. If they end up supporting ObamaCare, Barack Obama will claim vindication for the next few months of the campaign for his re-election bid. If they strike it down, Obama loses his signature achievement and has to explain that for the next few months leading up to the election — and explaining is not winning.
Email This
Posted by Jay on November 14, 2011 12:21 pm
» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Healthcare, House, News, Obamacare, Senate, Socialism, State Government, States Rights, Supreme Court, Taxes, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, paternalism
Trackback URL:
Comments
One Response to “SCOTUS to Review Obamacare”
Leave a Reply
This is going to be the mother of all Supreme Court decisions. A decision in favor of Obamacare’s mandate to buy insurance will open the door for an onslaught of oppressive legislation that will almost certainly spell the end of freedom and liberty in America. We are staring into the abyss … if they get this one wrong, it’s going to be a long and terrifying fall.
Countdown to the end of the Obama Nightmare