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.

[Oceander]

The Court would have very good reasons for not taking up the administration's desire to appeal the 11th circuit's ruling, including the fact that the Court would prefer to have more of the circuits weigh in on an issue of such magnitude before they consider it - by doing that, they get the benefit of seeing how the various circuit court judges have reasoned about the matter, which makes it easier for them to zero in on the real crux of the case.

However, the Court will hear cases on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, if for no other reason than the fact that there is a split between several of the circuits already: the law, as it stands now, is constitutional in the 6th circuit and unconstitutional in the 11th circuit, and so it is only those who live within the jurisdiction of the 11th circuit who are free of the abomination. That sort of situation cannot stand.

[eyedigress]

I think he is wrong. The court will look at the reasoning of 11th and decide whether arguments need clarification. If that is not met, the 3 panel ruling will stand. (BTW, I believe Justice Kennedy would not allow the fed to force people to buy a private product just because you are a citizen)

[D-fendr]

constitutional in the 6th circuit and unconstitutional in the 11th circuit

Are you sure? I didn't think these were, in effect, regional courts but federal - and that one ruling unconstitutional means it's unconstitutional, no matter if all the other circuits rule it constitutional or not.

[nathanbedford]

Because the states as well as the federal government are parties and because the circuits are split, I think it almost inevitable that the court will take up the case. It is a matter of profound political and constitutional significance with implications for the whole economy and for the personal well-being of every American.

The court cannot very well conclude that one circuit which is for the law and another circuit which is against the law can each be left undisturbed and believe that the constitutionality of such an important law will be clear.

[Noob1999]

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

Really???

Maybe they will tee it up after they check out his Birth Certifcate -— not!

[Steve Van Doorn]

"...the court is not going to take it up"

Which means it will stand as unconstitutional

[eyedigress]

If the SCOTUS does not take it then 26 states win.

[nathanbedford]

I do not think that is the case. I think the ruling applies to the area of jurisdiction only.

[Lazamataz]

Obama and his minions seem to think it would be great if they further pissed off the electorate by getting Kennedy to somehow cast a deciding vote in favor of ZeroCare!?!? What are they smoking? Such a ruling would add at least 5% to the number of voters who will crawl across broken glass to cast the whole lot out on their asses.

They don't care.

[Oceander]

Are you sure? I didn't think these were, in effect, regional courts but federal - and that one ruling unconstitutional means it's unconstitutional, no matter if all the other circuits rule it constitutional or not.

I am quite sure. The decisions of one circuit are not binding precedent on any of the other circuits, so a case that arose in the 11th Circuit would not be bound by a decision in the 6th Circuit or vice-versa. See, e.g., Moores Federal Practice - Civil sec. 134.02 (I believe the section citation is correct, but it might be a different number within Moores Federal Practice).

Thus, a person living in the area covered by the 11th Circuit would not be subject to the individual mandate (but would be subject to the rest of the law that wasn't invalidated) whereas a person living in the area covered by the 6th Circuit would be subject to the individual mandate.

[Safrguns]

Obama knows that his health care bill is doomed to fail one way or another... there is no way to avoid it.

He also knows it is the one key element which is choking this economy to a much quicker death than he anticipated.

It is my belief that Obama is prepared to lose in the Supreme Court to collect on the resulting bounty of an economy bursting back to life just before the election.

If however the Supreme Court rules in his favor, there will be an outcry across this country the likes that nobody has seen in their lifetimes. Such a ruling to uphold Obamacare could easily throw us over the edge of the cliff, giving Obama everything he needs to intall martial law and complete his “Fundamental Transformation”. Such a scenario could even delay or suspend the 2012 elections.

This is easy... its Obama’s end game. A win - win for him.

[Joan Kerrey]

Unconstitutional, all of it.

Not so sure all of it will be the case as the court only ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional and made no ruling on the rest of it, effectively leaving the rest in place.

My understanding is that to rule all of it unconstitutional the USSC would have to take up the case and rule that all or some of it was unconstitutional. May be wrong but that’s my understanding

[eyedigress]

There is no “severance” clause...... BTW a millipede just crawled up my leg and I “freaked out”.

If any part of this is unconstitutional, the entire thing is gone.

[shield]

A lot can happen between now and June of 2012....so I expect the USSC to rule against the whole piece of garbage. What the SOB’s in the house should be doing as we speak is defund obamacare NOW.

[butterdezillion]

If the possibility of a foreign usurper in the White House is not SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant SCOTUS involvement, how in the heck can Obamacare be SIGNIFICANT enough for SCOTUS to hear a case on it?

Sounds to me like SCOTUS can leave any kind of nationwide legal conflicts and discrepancies they want, as long as they think it’s not SIGNIFICANT enough for them to spend their time on.

I wonder if the “let’s suspend elections” talk surfacing all of a sudden is intended to convince SCOTUS that the issue is SIGNIFICANT enough for them to not allow the lower court’s decision to automatically stand. Kind of a “we have flash mobs we can deploy at any time to create a martial law situation and we’re preparing the public to hear that elections will be suspended, so if you don’t do what we want, SCOTUS, kiss America good-bye...”

[17th Miss Regt]

Might that be the 3.8% tax imposed on the sale of all real estate to help pay for this disaster?

Sell a $150,000 house and fork over $5,700 for healthcare?

That is a great selling point for the program!

[Mariner]

The USSC HAS to take up the case.

There are conflicting rulings from other Federal Courts of equal standing to the 11th, saying the law is Constitutional.

IF, and I say IF the ABC report is true, that means the USSC is waiting for one of the other Circuit decisions to be appealed...perhaps keeping Obamacare in the spotlight through the elections.

Otherwise the ABC report is false.

[WOSG]

“Why are they confident?”

4 reliable statist liberals, 2 of whom Obama appointed
1 squish who most likely would not go out on this limb
1 true constitutionalist (Thomas)
3 conservatives who should be solid

5-4 upheld would be the over-under on this. BUT Kagan should recuse AND Kennedy should over-turn ... to get you to 5-3 overturned.

I hope!

[Ken H]

If any part of this is unconstitutional, the entire thing is gone.

Are you sure that's the case?

What's to stop SCOTUS from striking down select parts of the law and leaving the rest intact, regardless of whether there is a severance clause or not?

[eyedigress]

You and nathan may have a point but I don’t understand the rulings of circuits as well as needed. As I understand it, this last ruling could be a nail in the coffin.