Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ObamaCare: Supreme Court may postpone ruling till 2016
FreedomWorks ^ | 2-21-12 | Dean Clancy

Posted on 02/21/2012 11:55:07 PM PST by STARWISE

This morning's newspapers report an ominous development in the ObamaCare litigation, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court:

The Court posted a seemingly minor but potentially portentous administrative change, which suggests it might postpone delivering a final ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare until the middle of 2016!

Specifically, the high Court increased the time it will devote to hearing oral arguments on whether the health care mandate is a tax for purposes of something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)).

The historically lengthy oral arguments in the case, HHS v. Florida -- now expanded by 30 minutes to an unprecedented six hours -- are slated to take place late next month. A formal ruling in the case is expected by early July.

But will it be the final ruling? That's now less clear.

First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.

The ObamaCare mandate is enforced by means of a penalty fine, collected by the IRS. With a few exceptions, this fine will be imposed on every citizen who doesn't check a box on his tax return affirming that he has purchased government-controlled health insurance.

Is the IRS penalty a tax, or not? So far, lower federal courts have come down on both sides of this issue. And for complicated legal reasons, the Obama Administration has actually been taking boths sides on it: in Congress, the President's men say it's not a tax; in court, they say it is.

If the high Court decides the mandate is a tax, it will be a dream come true for the Administration:

President Obama faces reelection in November 2012. ObamaCare doesn't go into full operation until January 2014. The first time the IRS can levy the mandate penalty/tax won't be until folks file their tax returns, in mid-April 2015. The slow judicial process will likely delay a final Supreme Court ruling until mid-2016.

Until now, everyone has been assuming the Court will rule on the law's constitutionality in early July, five full months before the 2012 elections.

And we've all been assuming that, however the Court rules, the ruling will provide voters with a critical piece of information: What does the Supreme Court think about ObamaCare's constitutionality?

Alas, today's development calls that assumption into doubt. The Court might punt!

The expanded time given to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act issue suggests two things:

1) The high Court is taking seriously the idea that the mandate is a tax -- the strongest possible basis for finding ObamaCare constitutional.

2) If the Court decides that the mandate is a tax, it may be forced to postpone a ruling on the mandate's constitutionality until after the tax has actually been collected on a citizen -- three years hence.

Today's development is just another reason why we cannot count on the courts to repeal the government takeover of health care. However the Supreme Court finally decides, we citizens must keep fighting to protect our threatened health care liberties in the halls of Congress -- and at the ballot-box.

Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy

P.S. Last week, we filed a formal legal brief in this important litigation.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: barackrupt; boughtandpaidfor; fascism; fixisin; govtabuse; obamacare; rigged; ruling; scotus; scotusobamacare; supremecourt; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last
Supreme Court extends health care arguments

Excerpt:

The Supreme Court has announced it will allow a full six hours for oral arguments over constitutional challenges to President Obama's health care law, granting the case the longest hearing in recent history.

The justices said Tuesday morning they would lengthen the hearing by an additional 30 minutes, after both the administration and parties challenging the law had asked the court to spend not 60 but 90 minutes on a tax law known as the Anti-Injunction Act.

The question is whether the act stands in the way of judicial action on the challenge until after the health care law fully goes into effect.

With the extra 30 minutes, the court is slated to spend 90 minutes on the Anti-Injunction Act, 120 minutes on the law's individual mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance, 90 minutes on whether just parts of the act can be invalidated while allowing other parts to stand, and an hour on the Medicaid expansion contained in the new law over a three-day period in March.

~~~~~~~

Oh boy .. not liking the sound of this ...

1 posted on 02/21/2012 11:55:22 PM PST by STARWISE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onyx; penelopesire; maggief; hoosiermama; SE Mom; Liz; rodguy911; Fred Nerks; Red Steel; ...

.. Zing!


2 posted on 02/21/2012 11:57:00 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!


The last $6k above normal operating costs
for these next two quarterly FReepathons will be used to
purchase new computer servers to ready
FR for the very important 2012 upcoming election.

If you can, please help contribute to this goal
by Clicking Here!!


3 posted on 02/21/2012 11:59:14 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
*snip*

The Anti-Injunction Act issue is under consideration because of a ruling in Liberty v. Geithner that essentially deemed the individual mandate a Constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power.

In my view, the worst possible outcome of this Supreme Court battle is that the Court call the mandate a tax. Everyone recognizes that it is NOT a tax (including the acting White House budget director), but a ruling to the contrary would delay a ruling on the health care law until as late as 2016.

4 posted on 02/21/2012 11:59:15 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Sounds like the fix is in.


5 posted on 02/22/2012 12:00:21 AM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: musicman

Yeah ...
Perfect graphic for O’deathcare.


6 posted on 02/22/2012 12:07:46 AM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Talk about a headline guaranteed to make a stomach drop! 2016 far too late to save America.


7 posted on 02/22/2012 12:11:03 AM PST by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

How convenient! NOT.


8 posted on 02/22/2012 12:12:46 AM PST by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
IF the newly elected Republican House of Representatives refuse to pull the funding, why would the Supremes be in a hurry to end this madness? I am so glad we got those Bush appointees to the court. Thank you snarling arlen. The list just keeps getting longer in how the elite intend on destroying the ‘middle class’.
9 posted on 02/22/2012 12:15:57 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.

Let us not put the cart before the horse.

The question before the Court THIS YEAR is whether Obamacare is a "tax", as the Administration contends. Or if it is an unprecedented "requirement" to purchase a service [with a fine, if the requirement is not met] - as the States contend.

If the Court rules it to be a "tax" [this year], then it cannot be contested until AFTER the tax is collected [in 2015].

HOWEVER, if the Court rules it to be a "requirement", it can then rule THIS YEAR as to whether the "requirement" is constitutional.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act WOULD NOT apply in this case since it would have been ruled a "requirement" as opposed to a "tax" ...

10 posted on 02/22/2012 12:19:41 AM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

....how depressing.


11 posted on 02/22/2012 12:21:35 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

The context isn’t the the above?

The Anti-Injunction Act issue is under consideration because of

a ruling in Liberty v. Geithner that essentially deemed the individual mandate a Constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power.


12 posted on 02/22/2012 12:25:29 AM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

This is VERY bad news.Scary news!!!


13 posted on 02/22/2012 12:28:46 AM PST by Katarina ( Only RINO's left to vote for. God help us all. Perry and Palin not candidates....America's loss!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Just another reason to vote for Newt Gingrich!


14 posted on 02/22/2012 12:29:52 AM PST by A. Morgan (Ayn Rand: "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Morgan
Just another reason to vote for Newt Gingrich!

And 'real' tea party Congressional candidates. The PROUD GOP establishment basically shunned those 'tea party' Republicans we sent to represent US in election 2010... This mess is not just of the liberal creation, there are too many in the PROUD GOP that accept the plan to socialize our 'free market' health care system.

AND some religious denominations are all for UNIVERSAL health care so long as some of the religious traditions are exempt.

15 posted on 02/22/2012 12:37:56 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

click

16 posted on 02/22/2012 12:40:58 AM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
The Anti-Injunction Act issue is under consideration because of a ruling in Liberty v. Geithner that essentially deemed the individual mandate a Constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power.

I can see that Liberty v. Geithner would be litigated in 2016, because Liberty would not be "injured" until the tax kicked in during 2015.

BUT, in Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services the Staters are CURRENTLY "injured" due to the requirements that the Act imposes on the States NOW.

On January 31, 2011, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the health insurance mandate in section 1501 falls outside the federal authority in the Constitution, and that the provision could not be severed; Judge Vinson therefore concluded the entire PPACA must be struck down.

On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part; the court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the PPACA to remain.

On September 26, 2011, it was reported that the Department of Justice would not ask for an en banc review by the 11th Circuit, leaving the U.S. Supreme Court as the only option for appeal.

The government petitioned for the Supreme Court to review the court's ruling. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case, setting oral arguments for March 2012.

17 posted on 02/22/2012 12:54:08 AM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
I forgot to add that if Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services is ruled in the States' favor, then Liberty v. Geithner may be made moot ...
18 posted on 02/22/2012 12:57:35 AM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

They’re really begging the body politic to fix the problem. Once they dug in on letting Kagan participate, they found themselves in a credibility hole.


19 posted on 02/22/2012 1:03:11 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
The perfect reason to vote in Newton. I am sure he is tired

of the sabotage in our government to where we lose rights.

20 posted on 02/22/2012 1:17:12 AM PST by Christie at the beach (I like Newt and would love to see political dead bodies on the floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson