ObamaCare On Trial

Pages: 1 2

Compelling as that objection is, the fact that a conservative justice upheld the mandate on constitutional grounds suggests that, even with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, a defeat of the mandate and, of ObamaCare with it, is far from certain. There are also questions about the propriety of Justice Elena Kagan taking part in the hearings. As a solicitor general in 2010, Kagan wrote emails delighting over ObamaCare’s passage, famously exulting that it was “simply amazing” that the bill had passed. She may also have helped the administration mount a defense of the law. Citing that conflict of interest, ObamaCare’s foes would like to see Justice Kagan recuse herself from the hearings.

Those hoping for a quick decision from the court, meanwhile, are likely to be disappointed. In agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that it could defer judgment about any challenges to ObamaCare until 2014, when the universal mandate goes into effect. If the court decides to defer its ruling, there would be no way to strike down ObamaCare in the immediate future.

While that could be a setback for ObamaCare’s many opponents, there is also a possibility of a comprehensive defeat of the law. The Obama administration has argued that most of the law’s provisions are not tied to the individual mandate and should be allowed to stand even if the mandate is found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court however has agreed to hear arguments on whether the rest of the legislation should be voided along with the mandate. It could yet be the case that all of ObamaCare, and not just the individual mandate, will be on trial.

Given the Obama administration’s notable lack of domestic policy achievements, the reversal of its one major legislative victory would be disastrous. And while such a ruling likely won’t come any time soon, the Supreme Court’s willingness to hear the challenges to ObamaCare ensures that, if nothing else, there will be a healthy debate about the proper limits of government power. That alone wouldn’t bode well for ObamaCare.

Pages: 1 2

  • Fred Dawes

    Its all a Show, you will see obama care in forced and many will say no but you will never hear of the ones who say no, its a game and it is a police state country, next stop the web will be removed after that in 10 years you will be told what to think who to talk to what you can do each hour of the day, in other words be happy in your THX ( MOVIE BACK IN THE 1970'S ) WORLD.

    • Ken

      They are already indoctrinating our kids in school, so this seems more logical than people would like to admit.

  • margaretmack63

    This is a sad commentary about this country. This man was no sloutch; he evidently worked most of his life and is now down on his luck. My only problem with Obama-care is that it didn't go far enough and fast enough. When any American dies because he or she can't afford health care should use "Penny Health" for insurance meanwhile

  • G. Herzog

    I dislike ObamaCare for a more fundamental reason – big insurance is the problem and will never be the solution.

    We are locked in a death grip between malpractice insurance increasing the cost of medicine and medical insurance as the only way to pay for the excessive costs (due to hefty insurance premiums for medicine).

    I relocated to Taiwan where I get medical and dental coverage for about $25USD per month. I usually pay about $5USD per visit and the rest is insurance. Dental can be a bit more for inlays and so on, but still is half of what Americans pay.

    We should limit the liability of medical doctors and dentist in exchange for lower cost and get insurance companies out of huge windfall profits. Most doctors want to help people, but their insurance overhead has overtaken any reasonable medical practice. And the poor have made the ER a chaotic mess as they cannot get to see a doctor by appointment without cash in hand.

    BTW, my father and grandfather were MDs and thank God I never became one as the present work environment is economically and legally horrific.

    Put the reform where it belongs.

  • Zinnia2

    ruled unconstitutional or not – the Senate still should repeal it to get rid of all the complex workings that are being implemented now…

  • Dispozadaburka

    It will get passed.

    It is the new "DHIMMI TAX" of Saudi America.
    Muslims will be exempt, but that will only be announced after Obama's re-election in 2012.

    The best trick of the devil is to let humans think he doesn't exist.

  • waterwillows

    It is illogical to 'force' people to purchase anything. Once that door is opened, even the Judges will find themselves 'forced' to purchase a number of things they neither want or need but the law demands it.
    The 'law' will demand it. They will say it is "for the good of the country". Be that the car, home or any item or idea, big brother deems 'necessary'. And I think we all know that governments think a number of things are to be 'necessary' to people. We see that in many other nations.
    Forced purchasing is a death to the country and the people.

    • Jim_C

      Seems to work for every single other industrialized nation in the world, but hey….The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich also endorsed it…until it became inconvenient to the ideology.

  • tagalog

    Furthermore, there is a long line of Commerce Clause cases that uphold expanding authority on the part of Congress to make all kinds of demands in the name of regulating interstate commerce, as well as mandatory involvement in Social Security and other governmental "benefit" programs that lean in the direction of the Supreme Court upholding the Individual Mandate.

    Our only hope is that the justices will recoil at the idea of the U.S. government actually having the power to dictate to the people what they must buy and what they may choose not to buy. A mighty frail reed.

  • William Bruce

    I am afraid the decision by the Supreme Court cannot be predicted. But the American people need to remember that the only thing supreme about the Court is that it is the highest court in the Judiciary branch of government. The Constitution itself remains the supreme law of the land and the interpretation of the people could be against that of the Court. If that is the case, steps need to be taken to repeal and remove this monstrous Obama law.

    • Fred Dawes

      You are right but the people of the third world will be taken care of by obama care, the free people will go to jail and many will died saying NO To obama care.

  • Fred

    The Supreme Court should have made a decision to rule on Obama being ineligible to hold office and this would have taken care of the so called "Barry Obama Care".

    Or whatever this guys name really is. Barry and Holder MUST GO.

    • mlcblog

      Yeah, boy, we really missed it when we all knew his father was a Kenyan and that automatically disqualified him. But, somehow he ran and was elected. Unreal!!

  • Flowerknife_us

    Passsing a Health Care Bill with the full knowledge that the 48% of taxpayers who-pay no taxes- will likely be unable to afford Health Insurance. They knew up front the 18-26 age bracket were not able to afford it.
    The whole program makes criminals of everyone. Those without the means to pay are guilty right up front. Those with the means who refuse become criminal. Those with the means who do pay are soaked for the total.

    Discrimination by means of wealth and income with Constitutional authority is the end of the Republic with the socialist dream come true. The means of making wealth a crime with the authority to take it away.

  • mrbean

    Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? — having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government? If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen — it is already starting to happen — under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?
    Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them. You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

  • mlcblog

    I am praying for its overturn somehow because I work daily typing medical reports for doctors whom I adore and think the whole system we have in place now is most admirable even with all its flaws. Our docs manage to arrange care for patients who don't have funds or insurance as well as performing all their brilliant life-giving tasks. I so hope this nasty bill will not stand, where bureaucrats will run everything and many good doctors will take their talents elsewhere.

  • Asher

    If this Bill is so Constitutional then why have there been over 1000 waivers granted to multiple companies and Unions by Health and Human Services. The commerce Clause was expanded to accomodate this new bill. To say that the Health care industry can be taken over by the United States government under the Commerce clause or any other provision of the 17 enumerated powers allowed to Congress is Unconstitutional. The Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to establish a public health care system like the one they have in Canada and England. The problem is that our present Constitution is NOT being Enforced….It can't enforce itself!

  • Enola Maree

    Medical MJ changed my life for the better without it, I may well have to leave the state to continue being able to live.

  • StephenD

    And Kennedy has no compunction to adhere strictly to the Constitution. He has intimated that he is willing to bend on the First Amendment when the practice of it may "offend" some folks. What the hell do we even need a law protecting this right if what everyone had to say wasn't offense sometime, somewhere to someone?!? Trusting Judges with basic Constitutional issues doesn’t bring on the warm and fuzzy feelings. I’d rather count on the repeal of the law (found valid or not) from worthy officials after the next election.

  • G. Herzog

    It really is rather absurd to make this a Democrat issue when the insurance providers are heavily Republican. It doesn't matter what party you belong too, medical cost in America our out of control and it is due to law makers, lawyers, and insurers all lobbying for selfish benefit.

    And I suspect that "Trial Lawyers of American' happily donate to both parties. So it is money and greed that is hurting all of us.

  • Jim_C

    Yes, that's their best response to having done zero to reform health care, or outright standing in the way of reform.

    Go team.