Supreme Court asked to review challenge to health reform law

The Hill ^ | September 28, 2011 | Julian Pecquet

[maggief]

The plaintiffs in a multi-state challenge to Democrats' healthcare reform law on Wednesday formally asked the Supreme Court to take up the case during its upcoming term.

The petition for certiorari comes two days after the Obama administration let slip its final chance to delay the case. Two appeals courts have issued opposing rulings on the law's individual mandate, increasing the likelihood that the high court will decide to weigh in.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), one of the plaintiffs, had praised the Obama administration for not delaying a challenge to the Supreme Court. In explaining Wednesday's petition, they pointed to the urgency of getting a final legal decision from the high court on President Obama's signature legislative achievement.

"While the survival of the new healthcare law remains an open question, small businesses and individuals will continue to face uncertainty and trepidation, hesitant to hire or expand," Karen Harned, executive director of the Small Business Legal Center at the NFIB, said in a statement. "In filing our petition today, we are attempting to impress upon the court the urgency of this issue."

The suit involving the NFIB is one of three major challenges working their way through the legal system. All of the relevant petitions will be filed within the next several weeks, legal observers said, which means, assuming the Supreme Court takes the case, that oral arguments would happen in the first few months of next year.

[Founding Father]

Can’t wait for next June 30th.

[Sacajaweau]

If the court agrees with Obama, there will be a revolution.

[BuckeyeTexan]

SCOTUS ping.

(Anyone on/off, freepmail me.)

[SeaHawkFan]

What is interesting about this situation is that had he plaintiffs obtained a victory on all points in the Circuit Court, they could not have appealed to the USSC and Obama would have had some additional time to file its appeal. Because the plaintiffs filed their petition first, they get both the first and last word in the pleadings. Smart strategy on the part of the plaintiffs.

[free me]

Agreed, there would be no other choice.

[1stIowa]

What form would that take? torches and pitchforks in the streets?
Or just a withdrawal from all things that the gov’t could grab on to - a John Galt type thing.

[Sacajaweau]

I’m not sure what will happen in court. We already have SS and Medicare mandatory withdrawals from our paychecks...so what’s one more??

[InterceptPoint]

We already have SS and Medicare mandatory withdrawals from our paychecks...so what’s one more??

The difference is that SS and Medicare are paid for by direct taxation. Not so with Obamacare. The Obama Administration didn't want to call it a tax when they passed the bill. If they had, they wouldn't be defending Obamacare in court. That was a fatal mistake. Too bad for them. Good for us.

[ex-snook]

Why should people expect free hospital emergency care? The substitute for individual mandate is a health care loan, like a student loan. The government should provide a health loan for the services, to be repaid just like a student loan. If not repaid, it should be deducted from future SS payments. Pay me now, pay me later or get insurance beforehand. Charges for illegals should be charged to their country of origin.

[TexasTransplant]

I will be with the Millions of “Citizens” awaiting my Court Date ... I will not sign up for Obamacare ... nor will I Pay the Fine ... Prison First and if I get out ... The Gloves will be off.

TT