Supreme Court Could Hear Health Care During Election

jackalope

Former Staff
Jan 2010
51,139
17,672
Maine
[h=2]Supreme Court Could Hear Health Care During Election[/h]Bloomberg reports that the Department of Justice has announced that it will "forgo further review at the federal appeals court" that ruled the health care reform law unconstitutional, instead seeking an appeal before the Supreme Court.

"A Supreme Court ruling striking down parts of the law would transform the campaign, forcing the candidates to refashion their messages... A decision would probably come in late June, at the end of the court's nine-month term."

James Hohmann: "It is a contrast both sides will welcome. A decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of an individual mandate before the fall campaign would undercut a central conservative criticism of the landmark legislation and give Obama freedom to tout his law's benefits without the cloud of an impending legal challenge. If the court ruled the mandate unconstitutional, it would unravel Obama's signature domestic achievement and remind voters of the White House's overreach in the first two years."

Supreme Court Could Hear Health Care During Election

Interesting! And good. Better to just get the question resolved. Wonder how it's going to turn out.
 
Jan 2011
12,143
5,214
east coast
I'm willing to say that the Supreme Court will overrule,after all it is stacked with Conservatives, and i don't trust even them to do the right thing. Look what they did with the contrbutions to candidates, giving the corporations the road to give whatever amount, IN SECRET. This is not right, the Court gave this country another way to give big to the politicians so they will do their bidding.
 

jackalope

Former Staff
Jan 2010
51,139
17,672
Maine
I'm willing to say that the Supreme Court will overrule,after all it is stacked with Conservatives, and i don't trust even them to do the right thing. Look what they did with the contrbutions to candidates, giving the corporations the road to give whatever amount, IN SECRET. This is not right, the Court gave this country another way to give big to the politicians so they will do their bidding.
I can see them overturning. The ruling that this story is in reference to is the one where the judge threw out the whole law, I believe. Maybe that was the circuit judge, and the appeals panel said it was severable? I'd have to go back and look, but I think only the circuit judge said it was severable.

I can also see them upholding the mandate, btw.

Either way, I think it's better to get the thing decided.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,876
69,675
So. Md.
It's hard to say how this court will rule on this issue. It will all hinge on exactly what they're asked to rule on, I guess. And I agree that it would be best to have this ruled on before the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackalope
Jun 2011
1,474
217
The general 'consensus' on what the Supreme Court will do is easy. We know its 4-4, we don't know what the hell Kennedy will do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayDubya
Feb 2011
40,024
9,769
happyfunville
They should find the individual mandate unconstitutional because it is. At that point, the lack of a severability clause (as well as the reality of it being unaffordable without the mandate) should put a stake in the heart of the beast. Then we can move on to a solution that fits with the princles of freedom and liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayDubya

jackalope

Former Staff
Jan 2010
51,139
17,672
Maine
This was an odd blurb, I thought:


It only takes 4
September 29, 2011 at 10:06 am Kevin Outterson


By the informal “Rule of 4,” any 4 justices on the Supreme Court can vote to accept a case. If the moderates on the Court think they have 5 votes to uphold the ACA, then cert will be granted soon and we could have oral arguments around the time of the Iowa Caucuses and opinions by the end of June.

(For background on the Rule of 4, and concerns about whether it has (or should) become a Rule of 5, see Lyle Denniston’s essay from a talk he gave at Yale Law School in 2009).

It only takes 4 | The Incidental Economist

"If the moderates think they have 5 votes to uphold ACA .... ". Why just the moderates. The opposite works too: If the conservatives think they have 5 votes to strike down ACA, cert will be granted soon.
 
Jul 2011
6,610
1,193
Detention Block AA-23
It's hard to say how this court will rule on this issue. It will all hinge on exactly what they're asked to rule on, I guess. And I agree that it would be best to have this ruled on before the election.
The general 'consensus' on what the Supreme Court will do is easy. We know its 4-4, we don't know what the hell Kennedy will do.
They should find the individual mandate unconstitutional because it is. At that point, the lack of a severability clause (as well as the reality of it being unaffordable without the mandate) should put a stake in the heart of the beast. Then we can move on to a solution that fits with the princles of freedom and liberty.
I agree, I agree, and I agree.
 
Jun 2011
1,474
217
"If the moderates think they have 5 votes to uphold ACA .... ". Why just the moderates. The opposite works too: If the conservatives think they have 5 votes to strike down ACA, cert will be granted soon.
Well, it depends on what the appellate court did of course. They don't need to grant cert to strike down a law that has already been stricken down. Eventually another circuit will probably rule in the other direction so there will almost undoubtedly be a conflict in the circuits. The cases should be consolidated and then heard by the Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackalope

jackalope

Former Staff
Jan 2010
51,139
17,672
Maine
Well, it depends on what the appellate court did of course. They don't need to grant cert to strike down a law that has already been stricken down. Eventually another circuit will probably rule in the other direction so there will almost undoubtedly be a conflict in the circuits. The cases should be consolidated and then heard by the Supreme Court.

ahh! Of course. Thx.

Another court of appeals did rule in the reverse, so conflict exists now. Plus, a DC panel is hearing a case right now as well.


I can't remember which rulings came from which courts of appeal, but I *think* this one was the 11th, striking the law (upholding the Vinson? ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but striking down his ruling that the mandate was not severable. The case with the 26 states.). The 4th and 6th circuits have also ruled. Of the three appeals courts rulings so far, one was upholding the mandate, one was striking the mandate, but declaring it severable, and one threw out on standing.