Posted on 04/05/2012 7:25:24 AM PDT by american_steve
On March 28, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fla. v. Dept. of Health and Human Services and Nat'l Fed. of Ind. Business v. Sebelius, two of the three cases before the Court involving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, sometimes referred to as Obamacare or the Healthcare Act. Both cases raise the question whether, if the individual mandate requiring Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is deemed unconstitutional, the remainder of the Healthcare Act still survives. This is commonly referred to as a question of severability. Both cases further raise the question whether Congress can lawfully withhold federal Medicaid funds from States that do not comply with the requirements of the Healthcare Act, or whether this amounts to unlawful coercion. That issue will be the subject of a separate podcast. To discuss the issue of severability, we have David Rivkin, who is a Partner at Baker Hostetler, and Ian Millhiser, who is a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.
(Excerpt) Read more at fed-soc.org ...
The deal is that the supreme court is being asked wether or not to UPHOLD a previous verdict from a lower court that the law IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It has ALREADY BEEN DECLARED Unconstitutional by a lower court- The Supremes are deciding whether to uphold or overturn that decision
It is kind of like throwing a red flag for video replay review- they have to have enough evidence to OVERTURN the ruling on the field
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.