The news that the SCOTUS might not rule on the Affordable Care Act until 2016 makes congressional elections much more important than the presidential election. It won’t matter who is in the White House if conservatives do not have a veto-proof majority in both houses. Without super majorities parliamentary shenanigans will give the Democrats the tools they need to stop a repeal bill from even being written.
Voters would be foolish to think any one of the Republican nominees will sign a repeal bill even if one gets to his desk. Does anyone really believe that Mitt Romney would sign such a bill irrespective of what he is saying now? Ditto Gingrich and Santorum. I’m not all that convinced Ron Paul would sign a repeal bill either. Immediate repeal would mean not hiring several million parasites during economic hard times.
Pelosi said 4,000,000 jobs. That’s just for starters if the bill is not repealed. Never mind the fact that they are government jobs. Neither politicians nor the media differentiates between government jobs and private sector jobs.
NOTE: Remember Bill Clinton’s famous campaign slogan in 1992 “It’s the economy, stupid.” Citing the economy is second only to citing “the children” whenever the parasite class wants something. No Administration is going to repeal “jobs.” Why should they when they have the economy as a cover story?
There is one amusing aspect to jobs. Hussein & Company are manipulating unemployment figures hoping to convince the public that unemployment is coming down, while high unemployment offers justification for seating 4 million more parasites at the public trough. I wonder if Hussein sees the irony in his two positions?
Even with a Republican supermajority RINO working with Democrats have the numbers needed to derail repeal legislation —— without a supermajority there is not a chance the Affordable Care Act will be repealed. If it isn’t repealed before 2016 the SCOTUS will not overturn it.
Bottom line: Only fools put their trust in the Court. The court is the enemy of private sector Americans. The growth of the welfare state along with a huge increase in the government’s power over the people since the end of WWII is largely the work of the Supreme Court. Not only the decisions the High Court handed down, but the cases they refused to hear is proof enough. The Court will not overturn a government power grab like the Affordable Care Act when it is so close to permanency.
Sad to say, a substantial number of Americans who never vote suddenly turning out to vote for repeal candidates is the only way I can see repeal happening. If this election is left to the usual division among voters the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.
Also, media is pulling out all stops to keep the public’s attention focused on the presidential race, Iran, Syria, and everything else that can be pumped up to look like Armageddon is just around the corner. Repealing the Affordable Care Act has dropped off the radar screen. Any talk about repealing HillaryCare II would remind Americans that their best hope lies not in the president, but in Congress repealing that tragedy.
Finally, there are times when I pray that I am completely wrong about an issue. This is one of those times. The following article only speculates. Nevertheless, the issue itself coupled with the Court’s track record leave little room for hope.
ObamaCare: Supreme Court may postpone ruling till 2016
By Dean Clancy on February 21, 2012
This morning's newspapers report an ominous development in the ObamaCare litigation, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Court posted a seemingly minor but potentially portentous administrative change, which suggests it might postpone delivering a final ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare until the middle of 2016!
Specifically, the high Court increased the time it will devote to hearing oral arguments on whether the health care mandate is a tax for purposes of something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)).
The historically lengthy oral arguments in the case, HHS v. Florida -- now expanded by 30 minutes to an unprecedented six hours -- are slated to take place late next month. A formal ruling in the case is expected by early July.
But will it be the final ruling? That's now less clear.
First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.
The ObamaCare mandate is enforced by means of a penalty fine, collected by the IRS. With a few exceptions, this fine will be imposed on every citizen who doesn't check a box on his tax return affirming that he has purchased government-controlled health insurance.
Is the IRS penalty a tax, or not? So far, lower federal courts have come down on both sides of this issue. And for complicated legal reasons, the Obama Administration has actually been taking boths sides on it: in Congress, the President's men say it's not a tax; in court, they say it is.
If the high Court decides the mandate is a tax, it will be a dream come true for the Administration:
∙President Obama faces reelection in November 2012.
∙ObamaCare doesn't go into full operation until January 2014.
∙The first time the IRS can levy the mandate penalty/tax won't be until folks file their tax returns, in mid-April 2015.
∙The slow judicial process will likely delay a final Supreme Court ruling until mid-2016.
Until now, everyone has been assuming the Court will rule on the law's constitutionality in early July, five full months before the 2012 elections.
And we've all been assuming that, however the Court rules, the ruling will provide voters with a critical piece of information: What does the Supreme Court think about ObamaCare's constitutionality?
Alas, today's development calls that assumption into doubt. The Court might punt!
The expanded time given to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act issue suggests two things:
1) The high Court is taking seriously the idea that the mandate is a tax -- the strongest possible basis for finding ObamaCare constitutional.
2) If the Court decides that the mandate is a tax, it may be forced to postpone a ruling on the mandate's constitutionality until after the tax has actually been collected on a citizen -- three years hence.
Today's development is just another reason why we cannot count on the courts to repeal the government takeover of health care. However the Supreme Court finally decides, we citizens must keep fighting to protect our threatened health care liberties in the halls of Congress -- and at the ballot-box.
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy
P.S. Last week, we filed a formal legal brief in this important litigation.