iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Stephen Breyer: Supreme Court Likely To Review Health Care Reform

MARK SHERMAN   04/15/10 02:32 PM ET   AP

Supreme Court Health Care

WASHINGTON — Justice Stephen Breyer predicted Thursday that the Supreme Court will one day pass judgment on this year's health care overhaul.

Breyer told a congressional panel that the massive health care law, like most major federal legislation, is a good candidate for high court review.

More than a dozen Republican attorneys general in several states are determined to challenge the law in federal court, arguing that its requirement that Americans get health insurance is unconstitutional.

Breyer said the court's relatively light caseload in recent years will soon be a thing of the past.

"I'd predict that three, four years from today, no one's going to ask us again why we have so few cases," Breyer said at a hearing on the court's budget before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

Justice Clarence Thomas said at the same hearing that the court's caseload, a third less than it was 20 years ago, depends in large part on what is happening in Congress. "Until recently, there hasn't been comprehensive legislation of the kind that would fill our docket," Thomas said.

The court still deals regularly with aspects of a 36-year-old federal law on retirement and health benefits as well as a mid-1990s statute that is designed to speed appeals in death penalty cases.

Lawmakers also quizzed the justices about allowing cameras in the courtroom.

Breyer has been much more open to televising court proceedings than others, including Thomas. Americans' understanding of the court would increase if they could see it in action more easily, Breyer said.

But he said the justices also have serious concerns about things being taken out of context and having televised high court hearings used to try to open criminal trials to television cameras. He said juror and witness security must be taken into account.

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., the subcommittee chairman, said he worries that commentators might use court coverage to launch broadsides against the justices. "Did you hear Breyer? What a jerk. Did you hear Thomas?" Serrano said.

Thomas, who does not ask questions at court arguments, piped up at that point. "You mean, didn't hear me," Thomas said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Justice Stephen Breyer predicted Thursday that the Supreme Court will one day pass judgment on this year's health care overhaul. Breyer told a congressional panel that the massive ...
WASHINGTON — Justice Stephen Breyer predicted Thursday that the Supreme Court will one day pass judgment on this year's health care overhaul. Breyer told a congressional panel that the massive ...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 855
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SAJP
A Man Exploring Earth's Extremities
08:05 AM on 04/16/2010
The conservative talking points cannot explore the issue any deeper than social-conservative mindset permits:

"We are being forced to pay money by 'Black' Obama's 'socialist party' and we don't like it."

Sound a lot 'grittier' and more boot-scootin, gun-totin, redneckifyingly exciting than:

"Our elected representatives, by majority and by due legislative process, have created a law that addresses the shameful lack of health care in a modern first world country like ours that has a higher incidence of Infant Mortality than either Communist China or Viet Nam, and a corrupt, parasitic health and pharmaceutical industry with vast profits and sky-rocketing costs to the public that will crush future generations with massive debt, and, even though, through this new law, we can choose to buy health care or pay a small tax subsidy to correct this tragic problem, we will scream and whine and threaten because we *conservatives* don't like it."

This same vacant reasoning applies to every one of their arguments. If the USA was a perfect place, the social conservatives would still need some sort of 'anger fixation' bogeyman or they just wouldn't be happy (and their leaders exploit this fact daily).
photo
RUKidding0
Freedom is Fundamental
11:39 AM on 04/16/2010
Why seest thou the mote in your brother's eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SAJP
A Man Exploring Earth's Extremities
12:16 PM on 04/16/2010
Ah - a complete non sequitur -- misquoted in 16th century English -- in response to 21st century American commentary. That's no mere mote you've got in your eye bud -- it's willful blindness on a grand scale...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tlgeiger62
A woman of substance.
06:25 AM on 04/16/2010
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" when in the end the many end up paying for the few.

Like required immunizations, health insurance mandates will ultimately protect everyone. And, yes, I know that people are not penalized when they choose NOT to innoculate, but just the same, I'm for the mandate.
03:56 AM on 04/16/2010
"Breyer has been much more open to televising court proceedings than others..."

He's right! Camera's BELONG in their courtroom(s).

After all, they are supposedly working for the people and the people have the right to know how they decide laws/cases!
03:07 AM on 04/16/2010
I don't see the Republicans actually taking this to court, because the mandates are the one thing the insurance industry wants out of the bill. And the Republicans will do whatever the insurance industry wants.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:06 AM on 04/16/2010
The health care bill ...scalia's toilet reading from here on out .............
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
02:30 AM on 04/16/2010
What Thomas means to say is that until recently there was no legislation getting passed of a liberal bent, therefore the SC had no reason to get out of bed. But since the people elected liberals to Congress & White House and govt is doing the people's business, then Thomas and his cohorts need to get out of bed to do the corporate bidding.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Texanbybirth
Embarrassing Socialists from coast to coast
01:40 AM on 04/16/2010
If the mandate is upheld, I think when the R's get back in power we ought to have a requirement that everyone has to have a gun.

It would be for "National Security".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChicagoSuz
Writer/Teacher/Actor/Activist
07:18 PM on 04/16/2010
More like self-defense... ;-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChicagoSuz
Writer/Teacher/Actor/Activist
01:30 AM on 04/16/2010
Worst case scenario. Even if this somehow gets in front of the SC (although I think the only grounds they have are coffee grounds... ;-) - & 'this' Court rules 5-4 in favor of the wingnuts...

...there's something in HCR that states that even if one part of it is ruled 'unconstitutional,' it won't affect the rest of it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Texanbybirth
Embarrassing Socialists from coast to coast
01:43 AM on 04/16/2010
Your dreamin' it will have to be completely thrown out because the mandate is central to the entire scheme. (I like being in the minority and getting to use the word "scheme")
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChicagoSuz
Writer/Teacher/Actor/Activist
02:45 AM on 04/16/2010
You may not like it... but it's true, nevertheless... :-)
03:28 PM on 04/16/2010
What Suz is talking about is the opt out clause. If an individual state does not like the funding provisions of the law, they are free to opt out, as long as they provide the same level of benefits as provided by the law. Now you have to tell the justices on the SCOTUS why you prefer to sue rather than opt out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/wyden-health-care-lawsuit_n_511748.html
01:26 AM on 04/16/2010
Interesting that the strict constructionists are the new activist judges on this court.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Weirdwriter
02:12 AM on 04/16/2010
Yes, it's not "activism" if the judges do Republican bidding.
photo
RUKidding0
Freedom is Fundamental
11:26 AM on 04/16/2010
Conservative activism in the judiciary, such as it is, has long been called for to balance the many decades of virulent activism by the left.

To fail to do so is to bring a scalpel to the proverbial gunfight, which is surely a losing, if principled, approach.

If this nation is ever to rescue freedom from the clutches of an overweening social democratic state, conservatives will have to take up arms fitting the fight with no apology.
01:51 PM on 04/17/2010
Check out this article, then google the Stoneridge v. Scientific Atlanta Supreme Court decision (and background information). This is why Mr. Paulson and other third party conspirators will continue to walk. I fault Congress, too, for failing to adress the lack of specificity in the language. Perhaps the conservatives are failing to be conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/17goldman.html?hpw
12:05 AM on 04/16/2010
You cannot force someone to buy something.
period.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:11 AM on 04/16/2010
You mean I cannot be forced to "buy" into Social Security?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kadyak
12:41 AM on 04/16/2010
How about a proper foundation and plumbing and electrical work for your house.

How about required fire prevention equipment, required exits, stairways, etc.

How about food, clothing, and medical care for your dependents, your children.

How about insurance for your car.

But I agree that if you lack a brain, all your money won't buy you one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kadyak
01:04 AM on 04/16/2010
Sorry, reply was meant for Doc Goodlove.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
springsm
01:06 AM on 04/16/2010
Have you really found out what this health reform says or are you going by the words of Fox and Rush? You are not being forced. As far as the Roberts court goes...they will side with the Obstructionists because that is what they do. If so, I think it is time to think about recalling Roberts and Alito. You can't trust them to really do an honest assessment of this. Leastways..it will certainly give a foot up for the Attrny's General that are vying to climb the political ladder.
photo
XME
Life is hard. After all, it kills you.
11:19 PM on 04/15/2010
Fine by me, since the case has no merits. People still have a CHOICE: health insurance, OR an additional tax.

By their (people like the pols in my state of VA who are part of this ridiculous case) standards, the federal gov also requires us to have children, since if we do not, we don't get the same credits those with children do. No difference.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Gidster
Not so much Liberal as I am anti evil.
11:27 PM on 04/15/2010
Nice analogy!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SAJP
A Man Exploring Earth's Extremities
07:54 AM on 04/16/2010
Well said and fanned :-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
siasina
11:14 PM on 04/15/2010
Wow so much ignorance here about the Supreme Court. I guess institutions and laws are only good when you agree with them, otherwise they should be abolished.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Gidster
Not so much Liberal as I am anti evil.
11:27 PM on 04/15/2010
Welcome to the Robert's Court.....
01:03 AM on 04/16/2010
is that going to be your argument when, decades from now when you are dying, 90%+ of the bill is still intact?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
siasina
02:28 AM on 04/16/2010
huhh?? excuse me? Who said I was referring to the health care bill? What makes you think I'm against the health care bill?

I was referring in general terms, to what some people were saying about the Supreme Court.
11:14 PM on 04/15/2010
health care reform is needed, but NOT mandate and government control.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:39 AM on 04/16/2010
"Government control" is such a silly term. Our governments, local, state, and federal, make regulations in all kinds of areas. Of course the insurance companies need to be regulated -- it's been proven.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
springsm
01:07 AM on 04/16/2010
Just more repeated parrot talk from Fox. Obviously zd has not read it or researched this.
10:50 PM on 04/15/2010
addendum to my comment:

and insurance is needed because as a civilization we don't thrive on sticks and stones anymore. things cost money. we like nice things, nice houses, nice cars, long lives. and all those things cost a lot of money, and need to be insured, as middle america doesn't earn enough money to buy their house 3 times over, or their car 4 times over, at any give moment.

we are a collective society of specialty professions. the sooner these anti-HC people get that through their heads, the better.
10:47 PM on 04/15/2010
alright, well if they say that a mandate for health insurance is illegal, then i'm not paying for car insurance, and nor will I write one check or give up a dime should I ever be taken to court over a car accident. its that simple. people who don't have health insurance go to the doctor all the time when they have an accident or get sick, just like people who don't have car insurance drive all the time.

so if i get in wreck and its the other person's fault, i'm all good because they will pay for the damage to my car. unless... they don't have insurance either because they are a rethug tea party phatty. hmmm... shoot.

i guess having insurance makes sense! and people who are too $tupld to buy insurance need penalties because they gum up the system.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
springsm
01:09 AM on 04/16/2010
IF they don't have insurance by choice and then have to be admitted to a hopital, refuse to take them or take them but don't bill us. I don't mind unemployment insurance and car insurance, but I do mind the stupid that won't get health insurance and then go to the hospital thru the emergency room. No way do I want to support them...let em die.