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 ...
So is abortion, but we know how that fight turned out.
I would be more optimistic if the Republicans acted as if they noticed some of the most damaging parts of Obamacare are not in the Healthcare Act at all but in the Finance laws and other Obamenacts.
The Supreme Court has ignored a lack of a severability clause before. Not a lawyer, so can’t quote cases. So don’t count on the whole thing being struck down.
I give about 90% odds on the individual mandate being struck. And 95%+ on the rest of the bill standing, based on the current makeup of the Court. 5-4 to strike the mandate, and 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of the rest of the law. Thomas will strike down the whole law, and I expect Alito to do the same. Not sure about Scalia, and think Roberts and Kennedy will defer to Congress.
If Congress defunds implementation of the law, I expect that also to stand, until the Demonrats take Congress again. Unless we get a solid conservative President, I expect a Republican President to fold. Cain, Paul, and Bachmann would veto funding. Have no clue what Perry and Romney would do if facing a Demonrat Senate. My guess is fold, but maybe they would choose avoiding being primaried in 2016. Maybe.
It doesn’t really take stupidity on the part of Republican voters to nominate Romney. It takes a load of Republicans-For-A-Day in the Primaries to nominate Romney and if the kenyan doesn’t draw any serious opposition in the Democrat contests then that is what we will get. Effectively, Romney is the Democrats’ alternative to the kenyan. They probably expect to lose the election so they might as well get a president who, while not an organizational Democrat, will preserve all their gains until they can take back the Congress in 2014 and the WH in 2016.
Thus, a person living in the area covered by the 11th Circuit would not be subject to the individual mandate
So.. if this person refused to pay the fine, could the IRS take action?
From my understanding, you could have several circuit appeals court decisions stating that it is “constitutional” and it would not make a difference. If just one appeals court rules “unconstitutional” , it is in fact “unconstitutional” since the law errs on the side of “unconstitutional”
If one circuit declares a law unconstitutional...and another circuit declares it constitutional...which is the case with Obamacare...then it is unconstitutional within the geographic bounds of the circuit declaring it so.
And constitutional within the bounds of the other circuit.
Once this awkward circumstance occurs, SCOTUS will take the case and render a decision.
If it happens, it will probably be 5-4. The obvious GOP commercial need only make the points: Obamacare huge disaster, president appoints justices.
My understanding is that Judge Vinson originally gave the strongest smack-down of ObamaCare, by ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional AND the law was not 'severable' so the entire law had to be struck down.
The 11th Circuit decision said Vinson was only HALF RIGHT. The individual mandate was still unconstitutional, but the huge power grab of one-sixth of the US economy by the federal government could remain intact.
IMO, Obama still wins if SCOTUS lets the 11th Circuit ruling remain as-is, because more than anything Obama wants his federal power-grab to stay in place. He will demand more taxes 'on the rich' to replace the lost funding. He might even prefer that, in order to shield 'his voters' from paying their fair share of health care costs. He could even sound like a hero, trying to 'balance the budget'.
Plus, he could at the same time, use the IRS and other agencies to punish and harass those who won't comply.
Also, Obama does not seem to care much if he trashes our national debt; He could default on that if/when necessary.
Ultimate power is Obama's greater goal.
“It doesn’t really take stupidity on the part of Republican voters to nominate Romney. It takes a load of Republicans-For-A-Day in the Primaries to nominate Romney and if the kenyan doesn’t draw any serious opposition in the Democrat contests then that is what we will get. Effectively, Romney is the Democrats’ alternative to the kenyan. They probably expect to lose the election so they might as well get a president who, while not an organizational Democrat, will preserve all their gains until they can take back the Congress in 2014 and the WH in 2016.”
Unfortunately, I believe your analysis is correct, and this creates an obstacle in the primary that we will need to overcome. Still, I think the Tea Party will be highly energized this cycle and it will be much more difficult for the Dems to pick our nominee this time around.
Win or lose, he will make it a campaign issue.
Yes, but only in the 11th Circuit. One of the primary reasons the SC takes cases is to resolve conflicting opinions among thhe circuits.
I’ll tell you exactly what these clowns are going to try, they’ll just wait until the very last second and claim that the individual mandate is a tax and that will be the end of the argument.
Maybe that’s what happened to Crissy Matthews?
SCOTUS ping.
(Anyone on/off, freepmail me.)
It only takes four votes in conference to take up a case. If the libs on the court want to hear it, SCOTUS will hear it.
I think Mariner @57 is correct. The FULL 11th Circuit has not ruled on it -- only a 3-judge panel. It is STILL destined to go to SCOTUS if the FULL 11th Circuit rules ObamaCare fully or partially constitutional.
The main thrust of the article is that Obama & Co. are afraid that if the full 11th has to hear it, then it won't be argued to SCOTUS until after the 2012 election. Then, if Obama loses re-election; the next Administration will be the one to defend ObamaCare before the Supremes. A Republican Admin could make an intentionally weak defense, thus (possibly) ensuring that SCOTUS will rule AGAINST ObamaCare; OR, the next Admin could follow Obama precedent and simply refuse to defend the law at all.
I think that what they're thinking is what you wrote -- i.e., that if they got SCOTUS to rule NOW, everything BUT the "Individual Mandate" might be ruled Constitutional. From their perspective, that's better than nothing. If the FULL 11th hears it, that would double the chances that the entire thing could be found UNconstitutional.
Obama & Co. might also think that if ONLY the "Individual Mandate" is tossed out, they might have the opportunity to hide the "Individual Mandate" inside another otherwise nondescript bill, and rush it through Congress before the 2012 elections, and have the "Mandate" take effect immediately. By the time anyone figures it out, and it gets to SCOTUS (again), would take years ... years of FULL implementation of ObamaCare, and possible changes on the Supreme Court before it's heard again.
I think they are misunderestimating (as usual) on this one.
If the Supremes overturn it, it undersocres again just how much time, money and damage was done forcing through this piece of crap legislation...and he is toast.
If they uphold the law as it is, the opposition will be even MORE outraged and head for the polls to overturn it...and he is toast.
Lose lose for 0bama. And Pelousi.
I think that the key thing that 0bama wants is a collapse of private health care (employer and individual market). This creates the vacuum needed for a single payer system.
If we want to promote free market medical care we must create the conditions for it to take root and thrive.
1. Prevent the federal government from establishing rules and regulations for the practice of medicine and health insurance. This task must be reserved for the states. Therefore, we must oppose insurance sales across state line so that we can prevent the federal government from having the authority to establish all the rules. This prevents IPAB over-reach into private plans, electronic record mandates, and coverage mandates that increase costs and reduce access.
2. States need to have regulation regarding insurance, but they need to refrain from too many coverage mandates. This increases choice and competition.
3. Better insurance disclosure laws are needed for consumers. Menu pricing required for hospitals and providers. Health savings accounts, tax deduction for individual medical plans.
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.