(Washington Post) Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obama’s health-care overhaul

The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear a challenge to the health-care overhaul act passed in 2010, with a decision on President Obama’s most controversial domestic achievement likely to come in the summer of his reelection campaign.

The court said it will decide whether the Affordable Care Act exceeded Congress’s power by requiring almost all Americans to have health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a powerful constitutional question that will likely make it the court’s most high-profile ruling since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

As a mark of the importance of the case to the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., justices said they will hear 51 / 2 hours of oral arguments on the constitutional question and related issues. Oral arguments will most likely be held in March over one or two days, with a decision expected before the court recesses in late June.

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, Health & Medicine, Law & Legal Issues, Office of the President, Politics in General, President Barack Obama

10 comments on “(Washington Post) Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obama’s health-care overhaul

  1. AnglicanFirst says:

    The title “Affordable Care Act” is an inside-the-beltway oxymoron.

    So far the “Affordable Care Act” has affected the availability of cancer fighting medicines and the availbility of articificial hip and knee joints.

    It is also driving hardworking and highly competent private practicioners out of business.

  2. Ad Orientem says:

    Re #1
    I find that very interesting since the vast majority of the law’s provisions have yet to come into effect. On the subject at hand however this will certainly be the most important case the SCOTUS has accepted in many years. I think I can count three certain Yes votes and at least one certain No. In addition I see two other probable No’s and one probable Yes. I think this will be a close call.

    On the other hand if the SCOTUS strikes down the law, I think they will be doing two things. First they will open a huge (and highly litigious) can of worms in terms of redefining the limits of government authority. And secondly it may prove a gift to the far left who never liked the law.

    Specifically those who wanted a truly nationalized health insurance system (this does not even come close to a government “take over” of health care, the hysterical rhetoric of the far right notwithstanding) will be emboldened to demand the adoption of some sort of “Medicare” type system for everyone since that has already been challenged in the courts and passed constitutional muster.

    The bottom line for those who desperately want this law killed is be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

  3. Jim the Puritan says:

    Yes, the local news has also said the certain cancer drugs are no longer available in my state.

  4. NoVA Scout says:

    It will be worth someone’s taking the time to sort through exactly what was granted, what was not, and what’s still out there. I may do that today if other things give me some space. We have had three Circuit Courts of Appeals, for widely varying reasons, uphold the health care law, and one (the Eleventh) knock down the compulsory participation element of it. So far, the federal government is ahead on points. My understanding of yesterday’s writ is that it applies to the Eleventh Circuit challenge, not the contrary dispositions in the Sixth and Fourth Circuits or the very recent D.C. Circuit ruling. I could be wrong because I’m thus far dependent on the popular press, and they often miss the nuance of these things. It’s also interesting (at least to me) that the Court has set aside 5+ hours to hear argument. That allotment is segmented by issue, but I think it will be a splendid legal discussion.

  5. Clueless says:

    No week has gone by in the past year, without the disappearance of 3 common drugs from the formulary. Elections have consequences.

  6. Clueless says:

    The “good news” is that this is likely to result in reduced costs.

    After the breakup of the Soviet Union with the loss of drugs/functioning hospitals etc., the death rate for Russian men fell from 65 to 57 in 1954. (It has since rebounded to 61). Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, called it a “catastrophe of historic proportions,” involving far more premature deaths than were suffered by the Russian army in World War I.

    I really do believe that the point of Obama care was always to ensure that the same is done to the United States. This will “save” Social Security, Medicare, the unfunded pension crisis and much, much more. Too bad so many will die.

  7. Jim the Puritan says:

    This case has huge implications for trying to preserve the remaining personal freedom rights of American. If the S.Ct. oks the government to force you to buy insurance, then it can force you under the Commerce Clause to buy anything else it wants you to buy. Our legacy as Americans will have ended at that point as well as being able to make us pay directly for abortions and other immoral things.

  8. Skeptic says:

    Clueless … you “really do believe” that? Really?

  9. Ad Orientem says:

    Re #6
    Colonel Ripper [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcHNYenN7OY]would agree[/url].

  10. Alli B says:

    #8, Clueless is spot on. No hyperbole here, unfortunately. One only has to look at the model of the UK to see his fears realized. Their system is what many on the left emulate. From what I understand, however, the British are seeing the human disasters of this type of medical care and are seeking to change theirs to a model more representative of the US healthcare system.