In a widely expected move the Supreme Court today decided that it will review the constitutionality of the new Affordable Care Act law and its requirement that all Americans carry health insurance. A final ruling from the Supreme Court will likely come in June, just a few months before the 2012 general election.
It was almost guaranteed that the Supreme Court would decide to rule on the law after multiple lower Courts of Appeals came to conflicting conclusions about the law’s constitutionality. Some circuit courts concluded that the new law is constitutional, while other courts concluded that the individual mandate represented an overstep of Congress’s authority.
The eventual decision from the Supreme Court regarding the law could have multiple policy implications for the future of health care in this country. It could also determine the flexibility Congress and the federal government have in designing new programs in a variety of other areas.
On a political level a ruling in support of the law might help the Obama campaign try again to sell the law, while a ruling against it could lend credibility to some of the Republican complaints about Obamacare. At a minimum, having the court likely rule on the case only a few months before the election ensures that the new law remains a pertinent issue during the campaign.
Update – SCOTUSblog is reporting that the court will set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral arguments, which is a modern record.




13 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Ah, this is Clarence’s big chance to serve his corporate paymasters as he’s never served them before.
Thomas may rule in Obama’s favor to fend off investigations of financial and ethical lapses. He’s no fool.
Norman Goldman predicts that SCOTUS will uphold the law. He says that Thomas and Alito will vote against it. Roberts might also vote against it. He said Scalia will write the opinion to uphold the law.
Bluewombat? Which way were you thinking Thomas would go to “serve his corporate paymasters?”
Have there been any serious talks about Thomas being brought up on ethical or corruption charges or is this only a dream of our liberal circles?
To strike the law down:
http://nyr.kr/oQZ9iF
At the moment, I’d say it’s more our dream than anything else.
Well, since we are just opining, I think they are not going to strike it down. The paymasters here are the insurance companies that stand to capture millions more new customers. How could the supremes not like that?
They will uphold the law. It is a huge insurance and big pharma givaway. It has never been anything but that. There will be no need for the SCOTUS to fix what isn’t broken.
Forcing people to buy health insurance is not and never should be legal. that said SCOTUS will say it is
I have a serious problem with any government, be it federal, state, or local, requiring me to buy a private product or service. That part of Obama’s so-called Affordable Care Act SHOULD be ruled unconstitutional, Commerce Clause be damned.
The Commerce Clause says the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, not IMPOSE it. That said, I’m not optimistic. Clarence Thomas will almost certainly uphold the law. After all, he has Big Pharma stock, does he not?
Actually Thomas seems the most likely to vote against the mandate. He and O’Connor were the only dissenting opinions in Gonzales v Raich.
The long view would suggest this is a easy win for Obama,because a vote against the mandate would be a huge
precedent-setting blow against the privatization and deregulation ambitions of Wall St.,which entail profitizing
public -sector utilities and then deregulating them so monopoly capital can extort us for toll-road usage,water,
and other inelastic demands.An ancillary benefit would be allowing fools and simpletons to think the Supremes
are fair and independent.
Sorry about the spacing fuck-up.