No Surprise: The Supreme Court Is Hostile to Health Care

No Surprise: The Supreme Court Is Hostile to Health Care

By Adam Winkler | HuffPost | 03/28/2012 9:19 am
Adam Winkler is a Professor of Law, UCLA

Excerpts:

“These days the Supreme Court is nothing if not predictable. After two days of oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's signature legislative accomplishment, there have been few surprises.

On the first day of hearings, the justices considered whether the lawsuits challenging the individual mandate were barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, a longstanding federal law that prohibits anyone from challenging a tax until after the tax has been collected. In the ACA case, the individual mandate is arguably a tax because someone who does not have insurance coverage will pay a tax penalty to the IRS. If the mandate is a tax, the challenges to that part of the law will be thrown out of court. Not until after 2014, when the mandate goes into effect and someone fails to pay it, would a court be able to entertain a challenge to the mandate.

The problem with that approach is that the justices on today's Court have shown
there are few stronger trends in the Supreme Court than judicial assertiveness. A Court that could decide a disputed presidential election in Bush v. Gore; unleash Citizens United on our electoral process; and repeatedly wade into presidential war powers can be expected to have no hesitancy deciding the fate of the Affordable Care Act. So when the justices breezily ignored the plain language of the Anti-Injunction Act on Monday, it was predictable. The Court wants to decide all of the major issues in American politics, including this.

On the second day of hearings, the Court looked at the individual mandate, with the four liberal justices defending the law and the five conservatives attacking it. In the run up to this week's hearings, a poll of Court-watchers found that 85% thought the Court would uphold the individual mandate. One can only wonder which Supreme Court these pundits watch. Apparently, many of those polled believed that the votes of Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts were in play. After all, Scalia voted to uphold the applicability of the federal drug laws to homegrown marijuana intended for personal consumption and Roberts's vote would be influenced by his often-noted concern for the institutional legitimacy of the Court.

Scalia's vote in the marijuana case, however, is easily explained. He's a law and order conservative and upholding the federal drug laws was consistent with his well-established pattern of favoring politically conservative outcomes. His aggressive questioning of the government in the health care case showed that he is likely to stick with the conservatives again. The same can be said for Roberts, who for seven years now has been confounding the expectations of those who believed he'd really push for unanimous, narrow rulings that avoided constitutional questions, as he promised in his confirmation hearings. His voting record is strongly conservative and his desire to protect the institutional legitimacy of the Court is remarkable mainly for its lack of manifestation in any case of significance.

As usual with the closely divided Court, the deciding vote belongs to Kennedy. His skepticism towards the government's argument is also not a surprise. He's proven to be the Justice most likely to side with the individual against the government, regardless of the politics. That's why he pleases liberals on gay rights and pleases conservatives on affirmative action. Although the federal government imposes other mandates on individuals - including mandates to serve on juries, register for the selective service, file tax returns - opponents of Obama's health care law have been successful in portraying the mandate as a dire threat to individual liberty.

So if the Court strikes down the individual mandate in a 5-4 decision with Kennedy siding with the conservatives, be angry or be joyous depending on your personal political loyalties. But don't be surprised.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/supreme-court-health-care-law_b_1384859.html
......

So here we have a true rundown of each justice’s political philosophy and how they will vote with the swing vote going to Kennedy...like in all other cases coming before this Supreme Court. The presiding factor is of course politics, rather than a much needed affordable healthcare plan for Americans.

What can we expect? With the sordid history of this Supreme Court any ruling will somehow benefit the corporations that Obama’s healthcare plan seeks to get rid of....wholesale greed, control over people’s lives, bodies, and of course healthcare itself and its costs to Americans.

Americans impatiently wait to see how the Supreme Court will embarrass itself again in its partisan zeal, notwithstanding the fact that this case may be too big to fail...Kennedy may decide to grow a pair.....

 

Yes. No surprise...especially when the health care in question rests clearly on unconstitutional ground.

 

This plan has nothing to do with providing affordable healthcare to Americans. It has to do with Obama appeasing his corporate masters. How can you possibly support the government threatening to kill Americans if they refuse to purchase corporate services? All this will do is harm people who are making just enough money to not qualify for government benefits.

 

When you thought the idea sucked, you were attacked by the left handed...

When states thought the idea sucked, they were attacked by the left handed...

When Congress persons thought the idea sucked, they were attacked by the left handed.....

Now that the Supreme Court thinks the idea sucks, They will be attacked by the left handed...

Theres a clear pattern to left handed behavior....

 

so clearly unconstitutional its been embraced by 2 out of 3 GOP frontrunners (at one time or another) lol

or am I giving Santorum too much credit?

 

yes that would be a good qusetion if anyone was suggesting anything like that.

how so?

 

The whole rant is rather pointless since the Administration did not argue it as a tax.

 

No surprise: ObamaCare's supporters resort to fallacious "logic" and baseless slander to defend their pet piece of unconstitutional legislation...

 

The fact is they are not embracing it now (if they ever did). That's what counts.

Only idiots and leftists (but I repeat myself) still maintain the mandate is constitutional.
To prove that fact Obama changed his view on the mandate and now thinks it's perfectly fine.

 

LMAO

And now you have liberals attacking the SC due to their "legislating from the bench". Which was A-ok when we were speaking in the context of the SC ruling against president Bush's legislation.

Bunch of cry babies.

 

Quite so. You are smarter than the whole Obama regime by a factor of ten, at least.

 

Neither side wanted it to be a tax, and thus when the SC says its not a tax the left screams and crys about legislating from the bench.

So basically, its not a tax in the context of Obama promising not to raise taxes, but it is a tax in terms of challenging it in court.

Make up your minds, your foolish arguments are looking weak.

 

lol I guess the constitution changed over the years

 

right, conservatives have never complained about that!

 

No Surprise: HuffPo is Hostile to Constitution

 

Did it? Obama has changed his views 180 degrees about the mandate. Why do you suppose he was against it before he was for it?

 

Ever since FDR seized upon our Economic hardships, at the time, to create Governmental redistribution of Wealth in the guise of Social Security, Welfare, Medicade and Medicare; the Federal Government has "taken" more and more of our Individual Rights. About that same time, they also began making criminals of people who had commited no crime, by making victimless crimes, namely any type of Prohibition.

It is time we stopped this and started returning those Rights to their Rightful Owners... We the People.

 

I think hes said, he was wrong, hillary was right....its the only way to control the cost of free riders....AKA the folks the GOP wants to protect

ive said it too, I dont like the mandate, and preferred his plan for that very reason. but the more ive learned the more I see its the best way to prevent people from waiting until they need insurnace, to get insurance.

and he never claimed it was unconstitutional.....btw

 

It's ironically satisfying, and amusing, to see the left now coming down on parasites and freeloaders. It's their base.

But it is, btw.

 

What is sad is that the left judges may actually vote that it is constitutional... if they do, they no longer abide by the constitution and are pure ideologues.

This should be a 9-0 death for Obamacare.

Clearly you cannot force a private citizen to buy a private commodity.... just so the government can then regulate it.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are fundamentally attempting to change the relationship between the government and the people putting the government in authoritative control over the people.

 

well I guess we will see....will you admit youre wrong if the court rules its not?

I will say right here and now, If its overturned I will not claim its still legal.

 

if its so clear how come so many republicans over the years werent aware?

did Newt Gingrich not read the commerce clause until 2009?

 

While the government has the power to regulate moonshiners it does not have the power to force teetotalers to drink.

 

where does the federal power to regulate moonshining for personal use exist?

 

it took an amendment to ban the sale of alcohol....but it takes judges to ban the personal creation and consumption???