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

Skip to comments.

New look at health care? [Supreme Court re-review of Obamacare?]
SCOTUSblog ^ | Mon, October 1st, 2012 9:41 am | Lyle Denniston

Posted on 10/01/2012 9:53:46 AM PDT by Hunton Peck

The Supreme Court opened its new Term on Monday by asking the federal government to offer its views on whether the way should be cleared for new constitutional challenges to the federal health care law — including a new protest against the individual mandate that the Court had upheld last June. The request for the government’s views came in response to a rehearing request by a religious-oriented institution, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. The university’s earlier petition was simply denied in June, so it asked the Court to reconsider and wipe out a lower court ruling in order to revive the university’s religious challenges to both the individual mandate and the separate insurance coverage mandate for employers. There is also another challenge to the employer mandate, which did not figure in the Court’s decision last Term.

The order came amid a long list of orders on cases that arrived at the Court over the summer. There were no new grants. Among other actions, the Court invited the government to offer its reaction to several new cases.

The U.S. Solicitor General was invited to advise the Court on whether it should hear Arzoumanian, et al., v. Munchener…(docket 12-9) on the insurance claims of victims of the Armenian genocide; three related cases on class-action lawsuits involving securities fraud (dockets 12-79, 12-86 and 12-88), and on Young v. Fitzpatrick (docket 11-1485), a case testing legal immunity for police officers working for an Indian tribe.

The Court summarily affirmed lower court rulings rejecting claims of “packing” of minority voters into new districts to diminish their political strength — a question of racial gerrymandering (Backus v. South Carolina, 11-1404) — as well as claims of partisan gerrymandering in redistricting (Radogno v. Illinois Board of Elections, 11-1127). The Court provided no explanation for its action.

(NOTE TO READERS: This post will be updated and expanded following this morning’s oral arguments. Posts also will appear later today on those arguments.)


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: healthcare; obamacare; scotus; scotusobamacare
I wouldn't get my hopes up, but this is an interesting note to start the new term.
1 posted on 10/01/2012 9:53:47 AM PDT by Hunton Peck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

All the FedGov has to do is lie again about what the law is. We know Roberts will buy it.


2 posted on 10/01/2012 9:55:38 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Conservatism is not a matter of convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

They won’t embarass themselves. Then they would have to admit that they made a big stupid mistake and showed that they have no concept of what law means and what the Constitution means.


3 posted on 10/01/2012 9:56:38 AM PDT by I want the USA back (What? the supremes are stupid and don't understand the Constitution? - answer - yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Well since Roberts said it was legal as a TAX, then it was illegally made into law since all TAX bills must originate in the house.


4 posted on 10/01/2012 9:57:27 AM PDT by Mr. K ("The only thing the World would hate more than the USA in charge is the USA NOT in charge")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Asking the enemy of Amerika the federal government.


5 posted on 10/01/2012 9:59:07 AM PDT by boomop1 (term limits will only save this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
All the FedGov has to do is lie again about what the law is. We know Roberts will buy it.

And if he doesn't, he'll create a new one just for them!
6 posted on 10/01/2012 10:00:35 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I love to watch you talk talk talk, but I hate what I hear you say."--Del Shannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

“Well since Roberts said it was legal as a TAX, then it was illegally made into law since all TAX bills must originate in the house.”

EXACTLY. And when someone with standing can challenge that tax, it should be heard again. All the “Roberts is a liberal” crowd doesn’t get this. He killed their power grab on commerce and boxed them in.


7 posted on 10/01/2012 10:02:17 AM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
There are many taxes in the bill, not just the “Fee” that Roberts, et.al decided were “Taxes”

The bill did, technically, originate in the house. The senate just amended it by removing the everything, and adding in the Patient Affordability Act.

Then, the house accepted the bill as amended.

Pretty sure this isn't the first time.

8 posted on 10/01/2012 10:04:56 AM PDT by garyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hunt

I was just about to say this... CJ Roberts as much as left a trail of crumbs to the door that should bring down the unconstitutional “health”care bill.

All legistration that involves spending MUST originate in the House. Since CJ Roberts was clear that the individual mandate was, in fact, a tax...the bill involves spending.

Therefore, it MUST have originated in the House to be legal. Unfortunately, it is a creation of Harry Reid and originated in the Senate.

Thus it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and Roberts as much as told us so.

All someone has to do now is re-challange it on these grounds..... please? anyone???


9 posted on 10/01/2012 10:05:30 AM PDT by CaptainKip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Harry Reid’s the one who took a Bill from the House then gutted it and replaced it with the 0bamacare text and changed the title.. Something like that.


10 posted on 10/01/2012 10:05:43 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck
AHHH sure! That traitor Roberts will never again be seen by my family or the 78% of Americans who were against this evil bill as an honorable sane outstanding American judge! He alone could have stop this monstrosity, but instead aligned himself with the DEVIL in incarnate!! He is as corrupted as the 9th circus bench! Benedict-ROBERTS... SOB!!
11 posted on 10/01/2012 10:09:43 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

I don’t think Roberts is “liberal”, but I also don’t buy into the idea that Roberts was purposely killing their power grab. This ruling that it was a tax is not a “poison pill” in the ruling. Why? Because he was the deciding vote. If he wanted to kill their power grab on the commerce clause, a better, much more expedient way to do it is just to vote with the other conservative justices and call it what is was...an abuse and extensive overreach of the commerce clause. Calling it a tax just so that it could later be shot down on a technicality makes no sense. It’s purely wishful thinking.


12 posted on 10/01/2012 10:10:33 AM PDT by trackman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

How about that the House bill number originated in the House but the entire content of the House bill was replaced by Harry Reid in the Senate with Obamacare so that the entire spending bill except the House designation originated in the Senate instead of the House a required by the Constitution?


13 posted on 10/01/2012 10:11:49 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno; Mr. K; StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; ...
“Well since Roberts said it was legal as a TAX, then it was illegally made into law since all TAX bills must originate in the house.”

EXACTLY. And when someone with standing can challenge that tax, it should be heard again. All the “Roberts is a liberal” crowd doesn’t get this. He killed their power grab on commerce and boxed them in.

Thanks for some interesting posts, Mr. K and jessduntno.

Pinging a few FRiends here...

14 posted on 10/01/2012 10:14:24 AM PDT by nutmeg (I'm with Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz: "ABO"/Ryan 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

When someone is actually taxed, that may be when there is standing.


15 posted on 10/01/2012 10:15:09 AM PDT by PghBaldy (I am sick of Obama's and Hillary's apologies to muslims, especially after 11 September 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: theKid51; Apple Blossom

ping


16 posted on 10/01/2012 10:19:26 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

“When someone is actually taxed, that may be when there is standing.”

It will also raise the issue of forcing tax exempt organizations to mandate a tax. What will they do then? There will be no mechanism with which to charge, collect or pay a tax.


17 posted on 10/01/2012 10:24:37 AM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck
Where's George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the gang that signed the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence when you need them. Wish they could all wake up from their resting places and march right into the halls of Congress and kick butt. Oh, well, it made me feel better saying it anyway.
18 posted on 10/01/2012 10:25:18 AM PDT by Evil Slayer (Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trackman

I go for more basic reasons for Roberts decision. I have to ask the questions that others have as:

-What did the Democrats have on Roberts?
-How did they get to him?
-what were they going to expose?


19 posted on 10/01/2012 10:28:02 AM PDT by sleepwalker (Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Interesting. Sounds as if Kennedy or Scalia is so torked-off they are gonna force the issue.


20 posted on 10/01/2012 10:28:19 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

This bill DID start in the house. The Senate stripped it, renamed it and stuck in Zerocare..

However, the court has never ruled on that practice so that angle can be worked.


21 posted on 10/01/2012 10:33:30 AM PDT by cableguymn (peace through strength. if they don't like you at least they will fear you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
It should have been sent back to the House for a revote. The House voted on a Bill using the term ‘penalty’. It would never have passed if the term had been ‘tax’. SCOTUS really screwed this up. I had little respect for the Supremes before. Now I have NO RESPECT for the Supremes..
22 posted on 10/01/2012 10:35:06 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Since when does the Supreme Court ask the federal Government what to do?

Aren’t they a separate entity?

At least they should be.

If they ask the Obama Government what they should do they already know the answer, Obama will tell the to do nothing.

WTF is wrong with our Supreme Court? Have they all been sheared of their balls by the 2 Dykes and one liberal old woman on the court?


23 posted on 10/01/2012 10:36:13 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

And that argument has yet to be decided by the USSC.


24 posted on 10/01/2012 10:37:21 AM PDT by cableguymn (peace through strength. if they don't like you at least they will fear you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

The founding fathers would have been shooting by now (civil war 2)


25 posted on 10/01/2012 10:42:10 AM PDT by cableguymn (peace through strength. if they don't like you at least they will fear you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

The problem is that the conservatives on the court called it a penalty. Penalties do not have to originate in the House, only taxes.

In order for Obamacare to die as a tax, the conservatives would have to do a complete 180, agree with Roberts that it is a tax, and then strike the whole thing down. That does not seem likely.


26 posted on 10/01/2012 10:46:44 AM PDT by mrs9x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: trackman

“Because he was the deciding vote.”

No, he wasn’t. There were other votes that could also have been called “deciding” votes, but that’s a nitpick. He had no interest in just killing it as a distortion of the commerce clause and nothing else. That would have been a checker players move. He effectively killed the commerce clause action and opened it to assault on MANY levels; it could not be used in a tax exempt environment (Catholic Hospitals, for instance) or could not be activated as a tax in its’s current form. And he knew that it would take another session and approvals and reconciliation to pass. And that ain’t gonna happen. Checkmate.


27 posted on 10/01/2012 10:49:29 AM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Amen,We were betrayed.


28 posted on 10/01/2012 10:51:46 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Amen Rose... he is truly a pos progressive.

LLS


29 posted on 10/01/2012 11:06:00 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("if it looks like you are not gonna make it you gotta get mean, I mean plumb mad-dog mean" J. Wales)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

One party (Liberty U.) petitioned for a rehearing. At that point, the SC had two options: they could deny the petition, or give the opposing party (the feds) an opportunity to respond before ruling. They did the latter. That’s a good thing (though it remains uncertain whether it will amount to anything much).


30 posted on 10/01/2012 11:12:14 AM PDT by Hunton Peck ("Blasphemy" is to Islam as "swiftboating" is to Democrats: The speaking of truth to liars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mrs9x

I agree.. those that thing Roberts was brilliant for setting up the argument as he did are nuts.

Roberts could have killed zero care dead with a vote the other way.

now we have to go out in to uncharted waters and HOPE 5 judges agree with our new argument.


31 posted on 10/01/2012 11:46:23 AM PDT by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: garyb

I think they are not allowed to ‘ammend’ anything to be ADDING a new tax- that would violate the ‘origination’ clause, wouldnt it?


32 posted on 10/01/2012 11:50:49 AM PDT by Mr. K ("The only thing the World would hate more than the USA in charge is the USA NOT in charge")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

“now we have to go out in to uncharted waters and HOPE 5 judges agree with our new argument.”

Anyone who thinks these are unchartered waters are, to use your phrase, “nuts.”

The law is clear. The tax was imposed illegally. The commerce clause has been restrained. It’s all good. Had he voted the other way, it would have done nothing like this...we can now set precedent for both areas of abuse of our state’s rights. Unless you don’t think that is important. Uncharted waters. Nuts.


33 posted on 10/01/2012 12:45:26 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKip

As you asked..here it is...

http://www.pacificlegal.org/releases/PLF-suit-Tax-raising-Affordable-Care-Act-started-in-wrong-house-of-Congress


34 posted on 10/01/2012 12:55:43 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
As promised, Mr. Denniston has expanded and updated the posted article with additional analysis and procedural background, as follows:
Although the Court’s order dealing with unsettled issues over the constitutionality of the new health care law was significant, because the Court could easily have bypassed the Liberty University plea and usually does just that, and yet it did not, its significance also could be exaggerated. The request for the government’s views is not a guarantee that the Court will say anything really new about the Affordable Care Act, that it would even hint at how the case should come out if returned to a lower court, or that it would issue any order that permits the University to make the challenges that were not ruled upon by the Justices, or even by the lower federal court that heard Liberty’s case — the Fourth Circuit Court in Richmond, Va.

When Liberty’s case was before the Fourth Circuit, that Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the University’s constitutional objections to the ACA’s mandate that individuals must obtain health insurance by 2014, or pay a penalty. That blunted the University’s claims that the individual mandate is unconstitutional on a variety of grounds: that it was beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and that it violated the rights of the University and its employees to religious freedom and to legal equality. The University also had no chance to make its case against the similar mandate, that larger employers must provide a minimum level of health insurance coverage for their employees, or be penalized.

When the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate at the end of last Term, it did so under Congress’s power to use a penalty in the form of a tax to enforce an economic choice that Congress had mandated. The Justices’ split decision ruled that Congress lacked the power to impose the individual mandate under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses. The Court said nothing at all about the similar mandate that applied to the University as an employer, because the Justices had refused to grant review on that question.

Less than a month after the Court had ruled, Liberty’s lawyers filed their motion for a rehearing. What they sought was a withdrawal of the Court’s prior order that simply denied any review of Liberty’s petition (that was one of several petitions that the Court never accepted for review, but disposed of with simple orders after the health care ruling came out). Liberty’s rehearing plea asked that, in place of a simple denial, the Court vacate the Fourth Circuit ruling that it lacked jurisdiction, and remand the case to be reconsidered in the wake of the health care decision.

If the Court agrees to do that, Liberty’s attorneys said, they would renew their claim that the individual mandate was unconstitutional on religious freedom grounds, and that the employer mandate was unconstitutional on all grounds — under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxing Clause.

Ordinarily, the Court simply denies rehearing pleas with routine orders. The other side in such a situation is not even allowed to react to the rehearing petition unless the Court explicitly asks it to do so. The Court held onto the Liberty rehearing plea over the summer — a period during which it routinely denied a host of other rehearing petitions, without comment. The Justices took up the Liberty plea at their September 24 Conference, resulting in Monday’s order asking the Obama Administration to file a response — within thirty days – with advice on what the Court should do with the Liberty case. While not signaling what the ultimate disposition might be, that was a sufficient break from the normal practice that it carried at least potential significance.

Under the Court’s rules, a party seeking to undo a denial of a petition must show that there have been “intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect” or a substantial argument that had not been made earlier. Liberty told the Court that its decision in the health care case was the changed circumstance, and it thus wished to take advantage of that when the case got back to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond. A rehearing plea must also carry with it a formal statement by attorneys that they are not asking for relief to delay the case, and that they are making the request “in good faith.”

Once the Obama Administration’s Justice Department files the response sought by the Court Monday, the Court will then act. It has the option, of course, of denying the rehearing petition without giving an explanation, especially if it finds no basis for reviving Liberty’s claims. There is no timetable for the Court to act on the petition after the government response has been filed at the end of this month.


35 posted on 10/01/2012 5:25:26 PM PDT by Hunton Peck ("Blasphemy" is to Islam as "swiftboating" is to Democrats: The speaking of truth to liars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sleepwalker

Kevin DuJan, over at hillbozz, thinks he knows the answer.


36 posted on 10/01/2012 6:05:57 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
Since the court determined it is only legal as a tax how is it the Feds can impose a tax on tax exempt entities such as a college or church?
37 posted on 10/01/2012 6:32:50 PM PDT by JIM O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JIM O

“Since the court determined it is only legal as a tax how is it the Feds can impose a tax on tax exempt entities such as a college or church?”

They can’t! That’s the beauty of it!


38 posted on 10/01/2012 7:32:03 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | 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