For the past three days, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard a series of arguments on Obamacare -- what promises to be one of the most seminal decisions in the Court's history. Now that the dust has settled, it appears more than likely that President Obama's signature health care law is on the verge of being struck down -- perhaps even in its entirety.
The challengers to the law include more than half of the States of the Union, the National Federation of Independent Business, and private parties, while the Obama Administration is standing in defense of it. Having heard arguments on Monday on whether a law called the Anti-Injunction Act would bar the Court from considering whether Obamacare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the Court on Tuesday moved on to examining the mandate itself and whether Congress vaulted across the Maginot Line of constitutionality when it imposed the mandate on Americans.
The liberal justices of the Court hammered the attorneys who were challenging Obamacare, leaving little doubt where they stand on the law. In their view, it appears, the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," also empowers Congress to impose the individual mandate. As the government argued, since everyone will have to participate in the health care market at some point, the government is justified in requiring people to buy insurance today. Heritage's Todd Gaziano explains the failure of this argument:
There's a difference between regulating commerce that's already happening and forcing individual Americans to enter into commerce -- in this case, the health care market -- so that Congress can better regulate it...
If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power.
That's an argument that resonated with the Court's conservative justices and with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oftentimes votes with the conservatives but is seen as a crucial swing vote in this case. At two different times, Justice Kennedy stated that the government's theory would "fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state." His thinking on the issue could be a bad sign for Obamacare.
If the Court were to strike down Obamacare's individual mandate, it would also have to consider what to do with the rest of the law. Should the justices just strike down the mandate? Should they eliminate the mandate and any of the related sections (which would be difficult to identify), or should they throw out the whole law? This question is what's known as "severability," and it was one of the focuses of the third day of oral argument. And on this issue, too, the Obama Administration did not have a good day. Heritage's Todd Gaziano and Hans von Spakovsky explain:
The more liberal justices were clearly hostile to the arguments being made by Paul Clement on behalf of the challengers that the entire statute must be struck down. However, other justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, were obviously concerned that the complex scheme designed by Congress will not work as intended by Congress without the individual mandate -- which is the 'heart' of the law as Justice Scalia and others later referred to it -- and thus they may need to strike down the entire law if the mandate is unconstitutional.
One issue remained for the Court -- Obamacare's Medicaid spending provisions under which Congress relies on its "spending power" to expand the program and coerce states to do its bidding. Those challenging the law say that the Medicaid expansion effectively "commandeers" state government, thereby undermining the states' sovereignty and autonomy. On this question, it is less clear where the Court will come down. Though the liberal justices who would uphold the individual mandate will certainly uphold the Medicaid provisions, it's less clear where Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas stand on the issue. But if the Court chooses to strike down all of Obamacare, the Medicaid provisions will fall along with it and the justices will not have to decide this issue. A ruling on all issues is expected from the Court in June.
In making his final argument in defense of Obamacare, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli alluded to the Constitution's preamble and its call to "secure the blessings of liberty" in his justification for Congress' actions. Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of Obamacare's challengers, eloquently responded to Verrilli's call to the Constitution:
Let me just finish by saying I certainly appreciate what the solicitor general says, that when you support a policy, you think that the policy spreads the blessings of liberty. But I would respectfully suggest that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not. And it's a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the states an offer that they can't refuse, and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that Congress can do more because it's voluntary, we can force the states to do whatever we tell them to. That is a direct threat to our federalism.
The Constitution's words are stirring, indeed, but have little meaning if Congress is to trample on the founding document's very real limitations. And so America waits for the Court to decide, two years after a severely divided Congress passed Obamacare and stretched its powers beyond the Constitution. But whether the Court upholds Obamacare or strikes it down, all or in part, it does not have the final say on this issue. It ultimately falls to the American people, through their representatives in Congress, to decide the future of health care in America and whether the federal government will live within its constitutional limits. Obamacare must be fully repealed.
from a Heritage Foundation article
When you see how this is reported:
"The liberal justices of the Court hammered the attorneys"--ooooh, hammered.
"The more liberal justices were clearly hostile"---ouch, hostile!
Compared to this:
"other justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, were obviously concerned" ---ohhhh, so calm and collected!
You see why I see Heritage Foundation, roll my eyes, and move on.
BTW--I wish some journalist would ask the HF why they have changed their minds on the individual mandate, since it was an idea of theirs in the 1st place?
by Marisaupa 6 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
by My Esoteric 4 years ago
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States contains several action verbs which give it life, vigor, and meaning. It reads "We the People of the United States, in Order to 'form' a more perfect Union, 'establish' Justice, 'insure' domestic Tranquility, 'provide' for the common...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
I like most of Obamacare, although I still have reservations about the individual mandate. On one hand, I don't like the idea of people being forced to buy a product, but on the other hand, I don't like having to help pay for ER visits for those who don't purchase insurance. I like that more people...
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/
by OLYHOOCH 7 years ago
Gingrich’s Big Flip-Flop: Was For Insurance Mandate Before He Was Against ItNewt Gingrich was for the individual mandate for health insurance before he was against it -– that was the impression given Monday in a John Kerry-esque video that the former House Speaker’s campaign staff hurriedly...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|