U.S. Supreme Court: Challenges could (will) burst healthcare triumph

upi ^ | 3/22/2010 | upi

[tobyhill]

Democrats are sky high, celebrating the passage of healthcare reform against ferocious opposition from Republicans, tea partiers and the health insurance industry.

But looming challenges in a legal system dominated by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court threaten to bring them crashing back down to earth.

At least three state attorneys general, all Republicans, are vowing to challenge the new U.S. healthcare law in court, and there are indications as many as 12 state attorneys general may join the fight.

With the Supreme Court taking a harder line on the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution -- the main authority used by Congress to enact healthcare reform -- the challengers may meet with some success.

The attorneys general say they will file suit once U.S. President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, and are pledging to take their battle all the way to the Supreme Court, The Christian Science Monitor reported.

[GnuHere]

Ironic that they chose not to use the Commerce Clause to allow insurance purchases across state lines, but to justify this crap.

[republicangel]

So with this load of horse manure thay just passed, are the insurance commissioners and their staffs at the state levels going to be out of jobs soon?

[GnuHere]

I would guess they’d be incorporated into the new mega-bureaucracy, unless Bambi wants to install his own minions as political favors. Dunno...

[highlander_UW]

Democrats are sky high, celebrating the passage of healthcare reform against ferocious opposition from Republicans, tea partiers and the health insurance industry.

I've yet to see anything that actually shows the insurance industry fighting against Obamacare. As I recall, it was Obama who met with the insurance industry and cut them a backroom deal.

[TornadoAlley3]

If people are exempt because of their religion can we start a religion that states we are forbidden to buy health insurance?:)

[raybbr]

Kennedy will be threatened. With either impeachment or something more nefarious. It will then go 5-4 FOR the bill.

[xzins]

Any challenge to this bill should go slowly and await the mid-term election. Othewise, with their majorities in Congress, an angry democratic party could support stacking the court or re-writing the legislationk specifically denying Scotus oversight.

[The Hound Passer]

I love how the writer colors it as “conservative Supreme Court.” Heaven forfend the Court might actually recognize the HCR bill as Unconstitutional on its face. Why that would be an outrage for the Court to follow the Constitution as the Founders intended.

[ironman]

What will be the likely remedy if we win. Entire law nullified?

[PigRigger]

Just throwing this out there some FReeper legal scholars....

Our hope is to find forcing people to purchase health insurance unconstitutional.....how is that any different than the government forcing one to participate in SSN?

I hope the states succeed....but isn't SSN a precedent they need to overcome?

[TexasNative2000]

This is the reason for the recent attacks on the wife of Justice Thomas as being a Tea Party activist.

The Democrat Socialists and the MSM will try to pressure Thomas to recuse himself since his wife is a 'known' opponent to President Obama. If he does recuse, the ruling is 4-4 and the law stands. If he doesn't recuse and the ruling is 5-4 against, it will be portrayed as the 'politicization of the Court', ala Bush v. Gore.

[Cboldt]

-- Our hope is to find forcing people to purchase health insurance unconstitutional.....how is that any different than the government forcing one to participate in SSN? --

I've noticed two potential differences so far, neither one of which causes the SCOTUS to find the legislation unconstitutional.

1. SSN is "purchased" from the government [it's government welfare of a sort, and welfare programs have been held to be constitutional]; health care is mandated to be bought from a private insurance company.
2. The penalty for failing to have health insurance can be argued to be in the form of a capitation tax

Either argument can be surmounted. The capitation tax by rephrasing the language in the statute; like the feds did with the Gun Free school Zones Act. The Supreme Court hasn't found the constitution to provide any limit on federal power to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

[tobyhill]

One is administered by the Government whereas taxes are allowed, the other is forced purchase of a private entity with no guarantees of acceptance.
If you bought ABC Insurance and it met federal requirements for minimum standards there is still no guarantees that ABC Insurance will be accepted by any provider. SS is a guarantee by a Government Agency.
Merely living doesn’t fall under the Commerce Clause.

[greeneyes]

“I hope the states succeed....but isn't SSN a precedent they need to overcome?”

Social Security is “voluntary” Railroads and Teachers opted out and pay into their own system under different rules ie they have “privatized” pensions.

[traditional1]

The Ruling at SCOTUS will let us know if the Court is on the side of the communists, or on the side of the U.S. Constitution, period.

IF the SCOTUS allows the takeover, revolution will be the only way back. IF the SCOTUS does NOT force the Birth Certificate issue, that is another indication that we have been sold out as a People.

[Condor51]

*** Our hope is to find forcing people to purchase health insurance unconstitutional.....how is that any different than the government forcing one to participate in SSN? ***

Big difference.

If you don't work, you don't pay into SS. And there's no Federal law that says one 'must work'. [It's like the leftists 'argument' that you must buy auto insurance. That's not true either as you don't have to drive or have a driver's license so you don't need to buy auto insurance.}

But this *thing* forces every American to purchase a product, for a 'service', you may or may not need. Technically, taking this to its extreme, newborn orphan babies now need to 'buy' insurance.

And if you don't; by this legislation you will suffer 'Pains and Penalties', i.e: Pay a Fine or Go to Jail. You are automatically guilty without a Trial. And that is 1000% unconstitutional. (see: Bill of Attainder)

No I'm not a legal scholar. But I've played one in Court.

[ALPAPilot]

how is that any different than the government forcing one to participate in SSN?

SSN is a payroll tax. HCR mandates health insurance even if you do not have a job.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I have zero faith in the court. They make a living ignoring the Constitution.

[mag]

Isn’t that what just happened with acorn?
and why the judge reinstated them?