Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leegal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leegal

Guest
If possible watch C-Span 3 today starting at 1:00 p.m. for the same day audio of oral argument before the United States Supreme Court on Obamacare.

The questions that will be argued over 3 days (this is unprecedented) are:
  1. Whether the Congress acted rightly in using the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to pass and enact this law? It is a new tax?
  2. Severability. If any part falls does the whole of it fall or are parts of Obamacare still viable?
  3. Anti-injunctive act in Obama care which prevents anyone from challenging Obamacare until they have paid the tax or fine and requested a refund and not before 2015. An extra 1/2 hour has been devoted to this for a total of 6 hours of oral argument over 3 days. This will be the first question argued today.
This is not the HHS contraception mandate, but what happens as a result of this week’s arguments can predict the future outcome of other objectionable components of Obamacare.

reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-usa-healthcare-court-idUSBRE82L1CJ20120326

This is a historic case. Please pray that those opposed will be inspired in their arguments before the Court, by God, and that the Justices are so inspired to do the right thing.
 
_Abyssinia said:
SCOTUS skeptical of idea that mandate is a tax

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/scotus-skeptical-idea-mandate-tax/447466
Supreme Court questions idea it must wait on healthcare mandate

thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/218105-supreme-court-questions-idea-it-must-wait-to-decide-on-healthcare-mandate
Supreme Court and Obamacare: Day One of the Hearings

lifenews.com/2012/03/26/supreme-court-and-obamacare-day-one-of-the-hearings
Click to expand...
  1. Bad news.
  2. Good news.
I’m waiting to hear the live audio to hear the Justices comments.

Thanks for the links.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Here is the audio of today’s Supreme Court arguments:

supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday

Full transcript of Supreme Court hearing: wapo.st/H7KRFk

What is bad news?
Click to expand...
If the Court finds that it is not a tax – the penalty to those who don’t buy insurance – then the Court can say they don’t yet have jurisdiction. In other words, you have to first be harmed by paying the penalty, asking for a refund, have the IRS or HRS refuse to return your penalty and then you can file suit. In other words, is this part of the case “premature” – the fact that the penalty is a tax on the individual.

I thouhht we have Breyer because he stated he was inclined to agree with Long.
I’m listening to C-Span now. The government is arguing now.

From your link:

“To be clear, today’s 90 minutes of oral arguments did not concern the underlying merits of the case, but whether an 1876 law called the Anti-Injunction Act bars the Court from ruling on the suit at this time. Under the Anti-Injunction Act, people cannot challenge a tax in court until after they have paid it. This would effectively punt the issue until at least 2015.”
 
_Abyssinia said:
Here is the audio of today’s Supreme Court arguments:

supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday

Full transcript of Supreme Court hearing: wapo.st/H7KRFk

What is bad news?
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. If the Anti-injunction Act applies, the matter is a tax, and the Court cannot decide. It seems they are leaning toward that it is NOT a tax – therefore they can go forward with the actual merits of the the other arguments.

“Most of the justices seem skeptical of the claim that the mandate and penalty are a tax," Barnett said in a statement. "They seem ready, willing, and able to reach the merit of the commerce clause claim.”
 
Leegal said:
I stand corrected. If the Anti-injunction Act applies, the matter is a tax, and the Court cannot decide. It seems they are leaning toward that it is NOT a tax – therefore they can go forward with the actual merits of the the other arguments.
Click to expand...
That is my understanding as well. Also there is precident with the Social Security Tax of the court hearing the case in any event.

“Most of the justices seem skeptical of the claim that the mandate and penalty are a tax," Barnett said in a statement. "They seem ready, willing, and able to reach the merit of the commerce clause claim.”

Yea, that’s my impression as well.

This will be a fundamental case, one of the most important in their life times. For it could limit or greatly expand the power of Congress.
 
Leegal said:
I stand corrected. If the Anti-injunction Act applies, the matter is a tax, and the Court cannot decide. It seems they are leaning toward that it is NOT a tax – therefore they can go forward with the actual merits of the the other arguments.

“Most of the justices seem skeptical of the claim that the mandate and penalty are a tax," Barnett said in a statement. "They seem ready, willing, and able to reach the merit of the commerce clause claim.”
Click to expand...
Which is good news.

Justices Skeptical of Claims that the Individual Mandate is a Tax
Today’s Supreme Court oral argument transcript suggests that many of the justices, including at least three of the liberals, are skeptical of claims that the individual mandate is a tax. This is important not only for today’s argument about the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act (which probably does not apply if the mandate penalty is not a tax), but to tomorrow’s argument about the constitutionality of the mandate. The federal government has argued that the mandate is constitutional because it is an exercise of Congress’ power under the Tax Clause. Lower courts have almost uniformly rejected this constitutional tax argument, and today’s questioning suggests that the Supreme Court is unlikely to accept it either.
Click to expand...
Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the mandate is not a tax because “Congress has nowhere used the word “‘tax.’” Justice Ginsburg noted that the mandate may not be a tax because it isn’t a “revenue-raising measure,” and because the monetary penalty is separable from the mandate itself. Justice Sotomayor also expressed doubts about whether the mandate is a tax, as did several for the conservative justices. As far as I can tell, none of the justices seemed to support the argument that the mandate is a tax.
Click to expand...
Thus, today’s events do not bode well for the federal government’s constitutional tax argument. However, there are two caveats to this conjecture. First, the justices sometimes ask questions for rhetorical effect or play devil’s advocate. I don’t think they are doing so here, but obviously I can’t be sure. Second, it is theoretically possible that the constitutional definition of what qualifies as a “tax” is broader than the AIA definition. This is not the usual view of the matter. Indeed, the one lower court that ruled that the AIA applies to this case did so precisely because they thought that the AIA’s definition of “tax” is broader than the Constitution’s. However, it’s not completely impossible that the Court will reach the exact opposite conclusion, and the Solicitor General actually argued for such an approach today. However, there is no indication that the justices are leaning in that direction, or that any of them believe that the constitutional definition of a tax is broader than the AIA definition.
Click to expand...
Even if the federal government loses on the tax argument, they could still win on the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. The latter is probably their strongest point. Still, it’s interesting that the tax argument – which has attained great popularity among legal academics supporters of the mandate – has been overwhelmingly repudiated by the courts, including several judges who voted to uphold the law on other grounds. And it looks like the Supreme Court may well go the same as the lower courts on this issue.
Click to expand...
volokh.com/2012/03/26/justices-skeptical-of-claims-that-the-individual-mandate-is-a-tax

This article says ‘because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.’

Will the Necessary & Proper clause save Obamacare? Not if the Court follows McCulloch v. Maryland
 
Leegal said:
I stand corrected. If the Anti-injunction Act applies, the matter is a tax, and the Court cannot decide. It seems they are leaning toward that it is NOT a tax – therefore they can go forward with the actual merits of the the other arguments.

“Most of the justices seem skeptical of the claim that the mandate and penalty are a tax," Barnett said in a statement. "They seem ready, willing, and able to reach the merit of the commerce clause claim.”
Click to expand...
If you listen to Obama and the Senate Democrats, they ardently argued that this was NOT a tax…until it became apparent that if it wasn’t a tax then it would be problematic, afterwards they argued that is IS a tax. I think that the arguement was primarily political. They argued that it wasn’t a tax, because they didn’t want to loose political points for implementing a new tax. Then, when people correctly brought up that they couldn’t use the commerce clause to impose penalties for not buying something, then they changed their tune and declared that it WAS a tax and that they had the right to impose new taxes as part of their Congressional mandate.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
If you listen to Obama and the Senate Democrats, they ardently argued that this was NOT a tax…until it became apparent that if it wasn’t a tax then it would be problematic, afterwards they argued that is IS a tax. I think that the arguement was primarily political. They argued that it wasn’t a tax, because they didn’t want to loose political points for implementing a new tax. Then, when people correctly brought up that they couldn’t use the commerce clause to impose penalties for not buying something, then they changed their tune and declared that it WAS a tax and that they had the right to impose new taxes as part of their Congressional mandate.
Click to expand...
Tomorrow the argument will be on the Constitutionality of Congress’ use of the commerce clause to force people to enter into insurance contracts, and the government will now argue that it is a tax (under Congressional power). We will counter that buying insurance is not a power of Congress to regulate and,can then Congress force us to buying anything? And that the penalty can be more than a fine.

Legal pundits predict that though a final decison might not be forthcoming until June, the Justices are likely to find that the ACA (Obamacare) was a proper excercise of Congress’ power, however anything is possible.

I will be listening tomorrow and pray that God will stand with those who argue against that this law is Unconstitutional.

JMO, I see no purpose to the fine if by paying the fine (or tax) we get nothing for it. The government will not use the money to purchase insurance or set up a program. It will merely be revenue and the uninsured who cannot afford insurance cannot afford a fine.

Medicaid is a joke. Here to be eligible for Medicaid you cannot make more than $754/month as a singe person – total. No one could live on that and buy insurance.
 
Today’s arguments focused on whether an 1867 law, the Anti-Injunction Act, should bar them from even considering whether the government can require Americans to purchase health insurance.

LINK
 
Thanks for posting. Great link. Sticking the IRS with enforcing the law makes this a valid precedent. I am delighted the actual text of the argument is available for all of us to read.
 
Leegal said:
Tomorrow the argument will be on the Constitutionality of Congress’ use of the commerce clause to force people to enter into insurance contracts, and the government will now argue that it is a tax (under Congressional power). We will counter that buying insurance is not a power of Congress to regulate and,can then Congress force us to buying anything? And that the penalty can be more than a fine.

Legal pundits predict that though a final decison might not be forthcoming until June, the Justices are likely to find that the ACA (Obamacare) was a proper excercise of Congress’ power, however anything is possible.

I will be listening tomorrow and pray that God will stand with those who argue against that this law is Unconstitutional.

JMO, I see no purpose to the fine if by paying the fine (or tax) we get nothing for it. The government will not use the money to purchase insurance or set up a program. It will merely be revenue and the uninsured who cannot afford insurance cannot afford a fine.

Medicaid is a joke. Here to be eligible for Medicaid you cannot make more than $754/month as a singe person – total. No one could live on that and buy insurance.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that many of the states who are party to the collective suit against the Obamacare mandate are preparing nullification laws if this SC ruling goes the wrong way. In fact, I think some states already have.
 
venite_adoremus said:
Thanks for posting. Great link. Sticking the IRS with enforcing the law makes this a valid precedent. I am delighted the actual text of the argument is available for all of us to read.
Click to expand...
I tend to prefer raw data than a journalist’s account. :o
 
MarcoPolo said:
I tend to prefer raw data than a journalist’s account. :o
Click to expand...
There will be same day feed available today and tomorrow starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT on C-Span 3. I prefer to hear the arguments themselves first hand, then read what the legal pundits are saying.

Today, the Justices will hear argument on the commerce clause and Congress’ exercise of power.
 
Good analogy I just saw someone make is, crime affects everyone in way or another, can Congress force all Americans to buy handguns?
 
Ginsburg just said requiring people to carry health coverage is different from forcing them to buy food. She suggested uninsured people pass their costs onto others, that is why Congress can regulate them.

Ginsburg: “When you make a choice not to buy insurance…When disaster strikes, you may not have the money”

Then why can’t you mandate people to buy healthy food? Healthy food means healthy people which means lower health care costs.
Alito points out that everybody will also eventually have to be buried or cremated.

Verrilli says it is “completely different” since people don’t shift huge uncompensated burial costs to others.’’
 
huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/health-care-mandate-urban-institute_n_1381211.html

WASHINGTON – Just 2 percent of the U.S. population would be subject to the aspect of health care reform at the center of a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court this week – the individual mandate, a study released Monday by the Urban Institute found. The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate – because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income – or given subsidies to comply.
Click to expand...
Including those who are subject to the mandate, but would get subsidies, increases the total number of people affected to 5 percent of the population, according to the Urban Institute, a non-partisan policy research organization based in Washington, D.C. (Some of those subject to the mandate who get subsidies would still need to dig into their pocket to cover the difference.)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top