Posted on 09/27/2011 7:05:32 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The legal eagles have said it was written as such that no part can be denied.
Thanks very much for your answers. Really appreciate it.
Technically, only for the territory governed by that particular circuit court. Its sibling circuit courts could take that as persuasive precedent, but aren’t locked into doing so.
That was a 26 state ruling
The USSC customarily will accept a request for cert when circuits disagree, but there isn’t any law forcing them not to let split rulings stand. Doing Bummercare (or not) by region would be particularly awkward.
and quite unconstitutional as this was a congressional law
Otherwise, ObamaCare stands. This SCOTUS is NOT going to overturn the New Deal Commerce Clause.
They should, But its to late for that. Requiring people to buy a widget is way over the line.
I don’t understand the lack of appeal by the Obama WH. What are they thinking here.
Conflicting rulings by different jurisdictions means the USSC has to take it eventually. And if at least four Justices vote to take it this fall, there will be a decision next June.
However, I believe they can punt and require the Obama and Holder to appeal it to the full 11th Circuit first. The reasoning behind that would be to get more arguments and opinions so that both sides have their cards on the table. This is likely; only rarely does the USSC take cases before the entire appeals process has played out.
As I recall, the Supreme Court ruled on the 2000 Presidential election recount only because of Constitutional time constraints.
“f 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.”
There’s a third (and probably most likely) possibility which would probably be the best result for conservatives, and that’s the SCOTUS striking down the individual mandate, but keep the rest of the law intact.
This would do nothing to help the economy, cause the rest of the law would still be there, but it would also accelerate the motivation for full repeal, cause the Administration has argued repeatedly in defending the individual mandate that without it is necessary to make the whole thing work.
I really don’t think the Administration is all that smart, and I don’t think there’s some “clever” method to their madness in this decision. I just think they reasoned that this was the lesser of two evils. It’s still a very big gamble though, and if this scenario where the SCOTUS basically splits the difference and removes the most controversial part of the law play out, I think it will work to our benefit happening in the middle of election season.
This of course assumes that we aren’t stupid enough to nominate Romney, whose presence of course would neutralize the entire issue, and at this point I’m not entirely certain about that.
I would say there's a decent chance that part will be struck down.
I just don't see in the Constitution where SCOTUS can't rule certain provisions of a law as unconstitutional and leave the rest.
Is there a precedent in case law, perhaps?
I can think it only two things.
Either they want to get it over with before the election, taking it off the table.
Or, they are actually stupid enough to believe they will prevail.
Your answer makes a lot of sense. Let’s get the arguments out there. That would reason with why Obama skipped the appeals deadline.
Couple things.
One, the climate is turning harshly against the Obamacare administration. You are right, that if they anticipated a more favourable climate down the road, then they would appeal and exhaust all their court options.
However, if they believe this case is destined for the Supremes, and they lose one of the reliable liberal justices, then it’s game over for Obama.
If the case doesn’t get to the supreme court by 2012 and Obama is out of office, then the current administration can make it DOA.
So Obama’s got a rather short window of opportunity here. He needs 5 votes, and he’s got 4 in the bag right now. He’s gambling everything on justice Kennedy because that’s his best opportunity to get a favorable ruling.
The last thing that Obama wants now is say Ginsburg retiring, and having to nominate another supreme court justice during a time when he doesn’t have control over the house.
This is why he had 2 nominations in 2 years, because the liberals wanted to mitigate the damage of the 3 young conservatives. This is part of why 2012 is so important, is because it means that there are going to be a waft of retirements.
So it’s the smart move not to appeal, take your chances with the 5-4 split and go from there.
That post by bill made sense. Obama doesn’t want to show his argument against the 11th. He wants it decided quickly before actual arguments are made against numerous factions of the law that violate the privacy act of 1974 and so forth.
“How will it be paid for . . .”
Armed (IRS agents) robbery!
That is what the pundits call a “sever-ability” clause. If you cannot parse it then the entire thing is dropped.
Thanks SeekAndFind. It will have to be repealed, regardless.
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.