4 Republican justices control fate of health law

Associated Press ^ | 3/18/12 | MARK SHERMAN

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Here's a thought that can't comfort President Barack Obama: The fate of his health care overhaul rests with four Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices.

His most sweeping domestic achievement could be struck down if they stand together with Justice Clarence Thomas, another GOP appointee who is the likeliest vote against.

But the good news for Obama is that he probably needs only one of the four to side with him to win approval of the law's crucial centerpiece, the requirement that almost everyone in this country has insurance or pays a penalty.

Lawyers with opposing views of the issue uniformly agree that the four Democratic-appointed justices, including Obama's two picks, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, will have no trouble concluding that Congress did not overstep its authority in adopting the insurance requirement that is aimed at sharply reducing the now 50 million people without insurance.

On the other side, Thomas has made clear in several cases that he does not take an expansive view of Congress' powers.

Both the Obama administration and the health care law's challengers believe they can attract the other four Republicans to their side. The group includes Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the two appointees of President George W. Bush who have swung the court to the right in a number of areas; conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia; and the less doctrinaire Anthony Kennedy.

[trappedincanuckistan]

“When the votes don’t matter you can count on us.”

Republicans 2012

[thethirddegree]

I pray that we can take the Senate and White House this November and get this monstrosity repealed. Never in my life have I seen a more worthless POS than the one occupying the White House.

[JoeRed]

Well, if it is upheld then outlawing abortion can be waged on a new front. Pregnancy when not a threat to a woman’s health would be an elective medical procedure. Since the government is merely regulating interstate commerce regarding health, no health resources should be wasted on elective medical procedures. Women have neither a choice on buying insurance nor having an abortion. We need doctors to save lives, not end them.

[Terry Mross]

The article says “the requirement that almost everyone in this country has insurance “ ALMOST except those who obama the dictator grants waivers.

[JoeRed]

I meant to write that abortion would be an elective procedure when the pregnancy is not life threatening. Ooops.

[newzjunkey]

I like how "neutral" SCOTUS stories start with the viewpoint any Republican-appointed block on the court may issue a ruling of the "wrong" view.

A lockstep Left is seen as the default correct viewpoint.

It's particularly amusing since some of the Left's most sacred cows, like Roe vs. Wade, were brought forth by "Republican" courts.

[itsahoot]

That’s because they need to throw ‘precedent’ out the window.

How ever would lawyers make a living then?

[Alas Babylon!]

Tell the writer of this story, Mark Sherman, yourself.

He’s on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/shermancourt

[Verginius Rufus]

John Jay was of Huguenot descent and very anti-Catholic. What would he think of a Supreme Court where 6 of the 9 justices are Catholics?

The date of this letter is in the middle of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia--Jay was then in New York.

[Still Thinking]

That’s because they need to throw ‘precedent’ out the window. Just because someone else ruled some way on something doesn’t make it right.

Exactly. Libs are always all aflutter about stare decisis, but the decades-old decisions they insist would be improper to overturn themselves overturned rules and laws that had been in place for centuries. It's all agenda-driven hypocrisy on their part.

[BlatherNaut]

It makes it sound as if the court is a legislative body, with voting blocs which have to be convinced to vote for a piece of legislation.

Beats admitting that the SC has already been hijacked by judicial activists. Obama's ringers (one of whom actually helped craft the Obamacare defense, and whose personal mission is to impose federally funded abortion via Obamacare) are clear enemies of the Constitution. The corrupt justice department protects the corrupt Obama administration and the corrupt ringer, Elena Kagan. The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

The author of this theory is none other than Justice Elena Kagan. In 1992, she lamented the Supreme Court decision in Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld that the government could exclude from Title X funding the subsidizing of abortions, abortion counseling, and abortion referrals. If her argument is accepted, not only will Rust v. Sullivan be overturned, but the government will actually be required to fund abortions along with other aspects of reproductive health.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/m-why_obama_wants_the_contraception_mandate_to_go_to_the_supreme_court.html

[Still Thinking]

Thanks. Not on Twitter myself, but I might check and see if he has a blog.

[EDINVA]

Amazing that the four Democrat appointed justices, apparently uniform in their foregone conclusion before the first argument, aren’t ‘doctrinaire’ as the author views four of the five Republican-appointed justices.

[justiceseeker93]

Conspicuous by its absence in this AP analysis of the SCOTUS justices is any mention of Kagan's refusal to recuse herself for having worked on a constitutional defense of ObamaCare as an Obama administration appointee prior to her appointment to the Court!!!

BTW, according to Rasmussen's polling, the Supreme Court as a body has a 28% approval rating.

[Jacquerie]

IIRC, Congress and certain senior executive branch staff are exempted from Obamacare too. They wonder why they are despised.