Skip to comments.ObamaCare: Supreme Court may postpone ruling till 2016
Posted on 02/21/2012 11:55:07 PM PST by STARWISE
click here to read article
The Supreme Court has announced it will allow a full six hours for oral arguments over constitutional challenges to President Obama's health care law, granting the case the longest hearing in recent history.
The justices said Tuesday morning they would lengthen the hearing by an additional 30 minutes, after both the administration and parties challenging the law had asked the court to spend not 60 but 90 minutes on a tax law known as the Anti-Injunction Act.
The question is whether the act stands in the way of judicial action on the challenge until after the health care law fully goes into effect.
With the extra 30 minutes, the court is slated to spend 90 minutes on the Anti-Injunction Act, 120 minutes on the law's individual mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance, 90 minutes on whether just parts of the act can be invalidated while allowing other parts to stand, and an hour on the Medicaid expansion contained in the new law over a three-day period in March.
Oh boy .. not liking the sound of this ...
The Anti-Injunction Act issue is under consideration because of a ruling in Liberty v. Geithner that essentially deemed the individual mandate a Constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power.
In my view, the worst possible outcome of this Supreme Court battle is that the Court call the mandate a tax. Everyone recognizes that it is NOT a tax (including the acting White House budget director), but a ruling to the contrary would delay a ruling on the health care law until as late as 2016.
Sounds like the fix is in.
Perfect graphic for O’deathcare.
Talk about a headline guaranteed to make a stomach drop! 2016 far too late to save America.
How convenient! NOT.
Let us not put the cart before the horse.
The question before the Court THIS YEAR is whether Obamacare is a "tax", as the Administration contends. Or if it is an unprecedented "requirement" to purchase a service [with a fine, if the requirement is not met] - as the States contend.
If the Court rules it to be a "tax" [this year], then it cannot be contested until AFTER the tax is collected [in 2015].
HOWEVER, if the Court rules it to be a "requirement", it can then rule THIS YEAR as to whether the "requirement" is constitutional.
The Tax Anti-Injunction Act WOULD NOT apply in this case since it would have been ruled a "requirement" as opposed to a "tax" ...
The context isn’t the the above?
The Anti-Injunction Act issue is under consideration because of
a ruling in Liberty v. Geithner that essentially deemed the individual mandate a Constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
This is VERY bad news.Scary news!!!
Just another reason to vote for Newt Gingrich!
And 'real' tea party Congressional candidates. The PROUD GOP establishment basically shunned those 'tea party' Republicans we sent to represent US in election 2010... This mess is not just of the liberal creation, there are too many in the PROUD GOP that accept the plan to socialize our 'free market' health care system.
AND some religious denominations are all for UNIVERSAL health care so long as some of the religious traditions are exempt.
I can see that Liberty v. Geithner would be litigated in 2016, because Liberty would not be "injured" until the tax kicked in during 2015.
BUT, in Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services the Staters are CURRENTLY "injured" due to the requirements that the Act imposes on the States NOW.
On January 31, 2011, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the health insurance mandate in section 1501 falls outside the federal authority in the Constitution, and that the provision could not be severed; Judge Vinson therefore concluded the entire PPACA must be struck down.
On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part; the court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the PPACA to remain.
On September 26, 2011, it was reported that the Department of Justice would not ask for an en banc review by the 11th Circuit, leaving the U.S. Supreme Court as the only option for appeal.
The government petitioned for the Supreme Court to review the court's ruling. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case, setting oral arguments for March 2012.
They’re really begging the body politic to fix the problem. Once they dug in on letting Kagan participate, they found themselves in a credibility hole.
of the sabotage in our government to where we lose rights.