Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court sets aside three days for healthcare arguments (decision before 2014?)
The Hill ^ | 12/19/11 | Sam Baker

Posted on 12/19/2011 9:31:35 AM PST by Libloather

Supreme Court sets aside three days for healthcare arguments
By Sam Baker - 12/19/11 11:40 AM ET

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on President Obama's healthcare law over a three-day span in late March.

The schedule further confirms the universal expectation that the court will issue a ruling on the healthcare law next June, at the height of the 2012 campaign.

The Supreme Court will begin on March 26 with one hour of arguments on whether it can reach a decision on the health law before 2014. There is a possibility that a separate federal law prevents the courts from ruling until the law's individual mandate has taken effect.

On March 27, the justices will hear two hours of arguments on the core question of whether the mandate is unconstitutional.

And on March 28, the court will hear arguments on two issues: how much, if any, of the law's other provisions can be upheld if the mandate is unconstitutional; and whether the health law's Medicaid expansion is constitutional.

The court will not hear any other cases during that three-day span.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhofascism; bhohealthcare; commiecare; court; donttreadonme; govtabuse; healthcare; individualmandate; nobama2012; obama; obamacare; repeal; scotus; socialisthealthcare; supreme; tyranny; unconstitutional
...prevents the courts from ruling until the law's individual mandate has taken effect.

Say what?

1 posted on 12/19/2011 9:31:42 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Bull Shiite!!!

There have been plenty of laws overturned before implementation and I would argue the law is in fact IN EFFECT, as states are now taking part of some of the $100+ millions to set systems and processes.

Addtionally, there are ads all over the air that tell us all about this “wonderful” program.

The last Congress confiscated monies from Americans to implement this.

So, no, the SCOTUS does not have to wait to rule on a law that is currently having an effect.

We have standing.

There is an injurious effect for the court to rule on.

They damn well better and quickly.


2 posted on 12/19/2011 9:40:22 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Every day these clowns don’t do their job, the Republic is suffering. Real damage is being done to the healthcare system.

At this point, we will never recover what’s been lost since the bill was made law.

Thank you, Judicial Branch, for dragging your lazy feet.


3 posted on 12/19/2011 9:44:43 AM PST by Psycho_Bunny ("Fair share" are the last two words I hear before I stop taking someone seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

Actually, I think it works to our advantage that this isn’t decided before the election. This will definitely give us the leverage to get out our voters.


4 posted on 12/19/2011 10:23:32 AM PST by AdamBomb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Don’t make sense, that is exactly why it is going to the Surpreme Court.


5 posted on 12/19/2011 11:00:16 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I vaguely remember hearing something like this awhile back.What does it mean?


6 posted on 12/19/2011 11:00:59 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Why agree to grant cert. if they’re just going to turn around and say that they can’t make a decision until 2014?


7 posted on 12/19/2011 11:01:19 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Once again the SC shows it is worthless. Why all this time delay on something that is destroying America and is totally unconstitutional.


8 posted on 12/19/2011 11:04:21 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

The court always rules on cases prior to adjournment in June. Anyone who thinks they will not rule by then does not understand how the USSC works.

If some particular ruling makes the others moot, they may not rule on those.


9 posted on 12/19/2011 11:13:00 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

The court always rules on cases prior to adjournment in June. Anyone who thinks they will not rule by then does not understand how the USSC works.

If some particular ruling makes the others moot, they may not rule on those.


10 posted on 12/19/2011 11:13:37 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

SCOTUS will make a ruling of some kind by the time that they adjourn in June. But that ruling could be that the issue of the individual mandate is not “ripe” yet.


11 posted on 12/19/2011 11:25:21 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Obamacare must be gone now, no later than February, 2013. And the law needs to be set aside while the courts ponder.


12 posted on 12/19/2011 11:53:44 AM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elpadre
obamacare ain't going nowhere.The REpublicans no longer have the stomache to repeal it, [the elction is over] even in the House. When it rules, look for the Supreme Court to rule that it is Constitutional.

As De Galle[sp?] said in 1944 outside Paris"Here I am and here I stay." It almost caused Rosevelt to relieve Eisenhower because he hated De Galle an did not want him to have any signficant role in liberating Paris. Same principle applies to obamacare. Our mistake was not in taking to the streets and raising hell to prevent its passage.

13 posted on 12/19/2011 12:03:45 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sport

No matter what the SC does, obamacare is simply not sustainable. It will cause the entire health care system to implode. It is cost prohibitive, it will result in rationing, and below cost reimbursements will force providers out of business or into cash only practices.


14 posted on 01/05/2012 12:41:13 PM PST by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est; zero sera dans l'enfer bientot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

That was its intended purpose.


15 posted on 01/05/2012 12:51:28 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson