Three reasons the White House is taking health reform straight to Supreme Court

Washington Post ^ | 09/27/2011 | Sarah Kliff

[SeekAndFind]

It’s now likely the U.S. (J. Scott Applewhite - AP) Supreme Court will rule on the nation’s health reform law by June 2012.

The Justice Department said Monday night it would not ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta to review its ruling against the Affordable Care Act last month. That decision, from a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, found the mandated purchase of insurance to be unconstitutional.

If the Obama administration had asked the lower court to re-hear the case, with all 11 judges weighing in, the extra steps could have delayed a Supreme Court decision until 2013. Now, a Supreme Court case looks very likely to come by next summer, right in the thick of the 2012 presidential election.

The conventional wisdom has always been that, for the White House, a longer timeline on health reform’s legal challenges is better: it gives the law more time to be implemented and benefits to kick in. So why did it choose the faster route to the Supreme Court this time? There are at least three reasons that could make a 2012 Supreme Court decision a more compelling one for the White House:

1) The Obama administration will definitely handle the case. Delaying a ruling until 2013 came with a big risk: a Republican administration could be in power, and arguing the case. It’s pretty hard to see a President Rick Perry or Mitt Romney asking his attorney general to defend the health reform law given that both have pledged to overturn the legislation. “That hypothetical Republican administration could have decided to do what the Obama Justice Department did with the Defense of Marriage Act — offer no defense of the law at all,” my colleague Stephen Stromberg wrote in an excellent post making this point.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Unconstitutional, all of it.

Let me get this straight, are you saying that if the Supreme Court refuses to take the case, Obamacare is at this point in time, UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY DEFAULT?

HOW SO?

[eyedigress]

Congress would have NO authority to even recognize it.

[eyedigress]

The 11th circuit is a federal jurisdiction and if the Supreme Court finds no standing to take the case, the 11th stands as rule of law.

[ncalburt]

I suspect that Ginsberg's health may be the real issue for the speedy hearing.

[eyedigress]

It is the way the judicial branch operates between the separation of powers.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I was hoping someone smart could answer that.

See Post 23 above.

We should hope that the SCOTUS simply refuses to take it up if this is the case.

[rangerwife]

Maybe the report meant the Court is not taking it up this next session which begins in October, but it doesn’t mean they’re not taking it up period.

[SeaHawkFan]

People in the Obama administration know that Obama is going to lose next fall even if he doesn't realize it. If they had asked for an en banc review, that would delay a USSC decision until 2013 when there might be a court member retiring in June or dying in office. You can pretty much count on the Republican party not allowing a vote on any Obama nominee until after the election next year.

Whichever GOP candidate is elected, you can be sure it will be a constitutional conservative and that will be the kiss of death for Obamacare.

Going to the USSC now is the only hope for Obamacare. In the end, it may not make much difference since the GOP will defund it or legislate out of existence if the GOP takes control of the Senate.

[eyedigress]

It’s the same as a circuit court in your state making a ruling. If your state supreme court doesn’t take the case, then the ruling if final in your state.

[Shadow44]

The fact that he’d have no accomplishments is a big deal. Obamacare was what be built his presidency on, and with it destroyed he has NOTHING of substance to run on.

People are already tired of his administration trying to take credit over Bin Laden’s death. Obamacare’s failure means his presidency is a failure.

[YellowRoseofTx]

Maybe the report meant the Court is not taking it up this next session which begins in October, but it doesn’t mean they’re not taking it up period.

That was not what the reporter said, but I keep looking for a report somewhere.

[M. Thatcher]

Just heard on WABC that the court is not going to take it up

That would be huge news, for it would mean the 11th Circuit (which found the mandate unconstitutional) ruling would stand.

Since the Obama Administration JUST decided to go straight to the Supremes, it is highly unlikely that the SC announced any decision. I assume you misheard.

[nathanbedford]

“This confirms what I had already concluded: that the government is confident that it’s going to prevail in the Supreme Court and would like to have a decision sooner rather than later,” former acting solicitor general Walter Dellinger told Politico."

I believe the former Solicitor General is correct in both his suppositions. The probabilities have always been the law will be affirmed by the Supreme Court because that has been inexorable drift of the law and because the court is so structured.

There are 4 dead certain votes for finding the law constitutional and there are 4 votes, any one of which, could go the other way. There is a 5th vote, Justice Kennedy, which certainly could go either way. The odds are that one of these 5 will crack. The 4 liberals are so given over to practicing politics in black robes that there is simply minimal chance that any of them would actually undertake to do constitutional justice. The 4 staunch conservative justices will actually vote according to their oaths and an honest man can simply get it wrong. Our side plays by the rules and the other does not.

I agree that the Obama administration wants a decision "sooner rather than later" because as things stand today, they have nothing to lose. They are on a course to lose the election and will need a boost next summer. If they get it from the Supreme Court so much the better. If the court rules against them, they probably will have lost the election anyway. Besides, they always have a chance to spin the results and use it to whup up the base.

I doubt very much whether the report allegedly coming out of WABC is accurate. In any event, the Chief Justice does not control what the court chooses to hear that is decided by 4 equal votes. The probabilities are that the court has not accepted an emergent appeal of some kind and that is what the listener heard.

[doc11355]

...In the end, it may not make much difference since the GOP will defund it or legislate out of existence if the GOP takes control of the Senate...

From your keyboard to God's ears...

[YellowRoseofTx]

I assume you misheard.

You could be right, time will tell.

[rangerwife]

Yes, the 11th Circuit ruling would stand in that circuit, but the 6th Circuit ruled the opposite way, so the SC will have to take the case to resolve that issue because of the split between the circuits, especially since the issue is applicable to the whole country. Then, there’s the 4th Circuit ruling. It has to be taken up by the SC IMO, it’s just a matter of when. I just think the reporter meant it’s not going to be for this session in October. Next session is June 2012 i believe. Here’s the current list of cases (on page 2), where the SC has granted cert: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092711zr.pdf

[eyedigress]

Nobama wants to use this as a talking point saying “Hey, I tried”. Phhhtttt

[ROCKLOBSTER]

That was not what the reporter said

Yeah, what do reporters know about facts.

[rangerwife]

Sorry meant to respond to YellowRose!

[meatloaf]

I’m not sure if all of it’s unconstitutional.There was no severance clause meaning if one part, the individual mandate, goes down, it all goes down.

How will it be paid for without the mandate?