More

Supreme Court's Health Care Moment: DOJ, Ex-Justice Stevens Say Listen to GOP Judge

Justice Stevens

First Posted: 09/29/11 01:02 PM ET Updated: 09/29/11 01:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- When the Justice Department submitted a petition to the Supreme Court yesterday urging it to declare once and for all that the 2010 health care overhaul is constitutional, the department made a point of mentioning the only Republican-appointed judge who has so far upheld the individual mandate. Indeed, the Obama administration made that point repeatedly.

The petition, filed in the case of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, asks the Court to reverse a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in which a three-judge panel split 2-1 to rule that the individual mandate exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Twenty-five states joined Florida in its challenge to the law, formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In the petition, the Justice Department repeatedly invokes a concurring opinion written by 6th Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton in a separate lawsuit challenging the health care law.

Sutton wrote in late June that "no one must 'pile inference upon inference' to recognize that the national regulation of a $2.5 trillion industry, much of it financed through" national health insurance companies, "is economic in nature." Before President George W. Bush nominated him to the 6th Circuit, Sutton, who also clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia 20 years ago, was a well-respected lawyer and law professor known for his advocacy of states' rights.

The 34-page petition cites Sutton's opinion with such frequency that it's surely trying to catch the attention -- and votes -- of the Supreme Court's conservative wing. In contrast, the Justice Department discusses the 6th Circuit's lead opinion by Judge Boyce Martin, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, for just a paragraph, despite Martin's robust defense of the health care law.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking to The Huffington Post on Monday, anticipated the Obama administration's approach with his own praise of Sutton. Stevens said the judge "didn't get distracted about his thoughts on whether it made sense to do whatever the statute requires, but he just analyzed [the law's constitutionality] in terms of existing precedent."

"Of course," Stevens continued, "Judge Sutton is a circuit judge rather than a Supreme Court justice," and only the justices can overrule the Court's prior decisions on the commerce clause. When asked whether his former colleagues would exercise that power, Stevens replied, "There's always a possibility."

Nevertheless, Stevens said he hopes his former colleagues will resist the temptation to color outside the lines, as the Justice Department asserts the 11th Circuit did.

"I think you have to assume that the members of the Court, just like Judge Sutton, will be guided by existing law," Stevens said. "They're not going to make up new law just because it might be good policy or something like that."

Earlier on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- When the Justice Department submitted a petition to the Supreme Court yesterday urging it to declare once and for all that the 2010 health care overhaul is constitutional, the department...
WASHINGTON -- When the Justice Department submitted a petition to the Supreme Court yesterday urging it to declare once and for all that the 2010 health care overhaul is constitutional, the department...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,046
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
hodz 01:41 PM on 09/29/2011
According to GOP, you cannot be forced to have health insurance. Also, according to GOP, if you have a serious or life-threatening problem and do not have health insurance nor the money to pay, then "you die". The GOP and its supporters say that they are for life and against abortion, but they bomb abortion clinics, kill the staff, cheer the state execution even if there is a doubt, and condemn the person  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PBOHIO
Independently Liberal
11:56 PM on 09/30/2011
Come on gang,,,go to http://wh.gov/4sp and sign a petition for universal health care...can't hurt and it could help.....need at least 5000 signatures. There are only 5 there. Yes, you have to register and receive an e-mail to sign,,,but it only takes a few minutes to complete.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jeff Norman
10:20 PM on 09/30/2011
The government has utterly failed to answer this fair and pertinent question:

How is congressional authority to impose an economic mandate limited, and why couldn’t the general public be required to buy almost anything for the same reason we can be required to buy health insurance?

The government’s evasiveness doesn’t prove the insurance mandate is unconstitutional, but it sure doesn’t indicate the opposite.

It’s hard to imagine a good reason the Obama administration hasn’t come up with a solid answer.
12:12 PM on 09/30/2011
After Justice Kagan was confirmed, emails came out, indicating her involvement in legal defense of the bill while she was Soliciter General. And appearing to contradict her testimony that she wasn't involved. DOJ still hasn't released other emails with Health Care Law titles, where Kagan is in the chain. She won't want to recuse herself, because, well, she doesn't want to. But it could get big as more questions arise on her involvement and she continues to refuse to recuse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PBOHIO
Independently Liberal
02:16 PM on 09/30/2011
If Kagan has to recuse herself, what do you say about Thomas and Scalia? Google Thomas/Citizens United, or Ginny Thomas. Thomas and Scalia were both present at a Koch Bros. "planning session"....what is that all about? Again, Google it to find out.
04:30 PM on 09/30/2011
Thomas' corruption goes back much further than that....

It's been a source of some amazement that so little is said about Thomas' deciding vote in BushvGore.....appointing George W. Bush President.....thus allowing his wife to continue her fine work on the Bush transition team.
tm
11:23 AM on 09/30/2011
My health insurance rates are going up again, I believe it is due to Obamacare and in anticipation of more of it taking affect. This law is full of political favors for freineds of Obama and the dems it is sickening. It needs to be gutted and amended word by word. Let the public know what is really in it Nancy, you have had plenty of time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PBOHIO
Independently Liberal
02:04 PM on 09/30/2011
Then how do you explain the rates having gone up astronomically BEFORE the PPACA? This is what we heard in Ohio:

"When only estimating the portion of the hikes attributable to health care reform, 5 percent may be too high, some experts say. Robert J. Klonk, president and chief sales officer of Cleveland-based Oswald Cos., an insurance consulting business, said the portion of the premium hike attributable to the new law depends on the specific carrier but is "somewhere between one-and-a-half and three" percent."

"Gary Claxton, a vice president at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health insurance issues nationally, puts the figure even lower. He says that for many health plans already in existence, "1½ percent might be a stretch." But "it depends on how chintzy the plans are," he added, because some that would only cover annual medical costs up to $2,000 or $3,000 -- an example from the fast food industry -- will have to beef up their coverage under the law, and that will mean higher premiums."

Kinda shoots your comments and any others who say the same out of the water. You do know of course that the STATES are the ones who approve rate increases?? Instead of saying "Obama & the Dems" full of political favors,,better be looking to your state leadership and see who they are "enriching"....
photo
trumbull desi
If I have something pithy to say, see below
02:37 PM on 10/03/2011
That gets you one new fan!
01:47 AM on 10/14/2011
I am in CAL and it is all Dems, they just passed another mandate that raises the cost of insurance $850 million to be divided between all ratepayers. So you just proved my statement that it is the Dems. Fed Dems, State Dems, whats the difference? I also said if you read closely that I believe it is in "anticipation" of Obamacare. Obama and the dems did not includes a single Rep recomendation in Obamacard. I dont' trust anyone in government to reduce cost.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jesster
02:05 PM on 10/11/2011
Our health insurance premiums have been going up every year (sometimes every six months!) for twenty-five years. Don't blame Obama. Blame the insatiable greed of for-profit healthcare and endless waste. The Public Option and/or Medicare for all would be a good place to start.
01:48 AM on 10/14/2011
How about throw in Lawyers and the endless lawsuits. How about States like CAL making new mandates. Can't keep up with it all.
11:01 AM on 09/30/2011
since this healthcare plan of obama does not allow you to purchase the policy from other states, the commerce clause does give congress the ability to regulate it. If they cant regulate it, then the mandate is unconstitutional. Commerce clause refers to interstate commerce not intrastate. The ability to regulate it would then be up to the individuaal state.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jesster
02:08 PM on 10/11/2011
That's why it should be nationalized. Medicare for all who choose it.
08:28 AM on 09/30/2011
While both parties argue about the individual mandate we move toward adding millions to a system that will fail unless people can find work in the private sector. Herman Cain is the only candidate that is prepared to address unemployment - no holds barred.
photo
Gneirre
2012.....I'm In!!!!!
10:08 AM on 09/30/2011
We see you don't have high expectations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
clearasmud
De Tocqueville and Marx were both right
10:46 AM on 09/30/2011
What about the Ten Jobs Bills submitted by Dems that the Repugs have Blocked?
03:54 PM on 09/30/2011
How about the 800 bills that lanquish in Reids inbox?
06:02 AM on 09/30/2011
Pre-Reagan, particularly during the Nixon Administration, both Democrats and Republicans had endorsed the notion of universal health care. Nonetheless, in show of support for the idea of universal health care (a right deserved to every industrialized nation for the exception of the United States), I have started a petition on the White House's website; it is found at the following link:

http://wh.gov/4sp

Sign it... and try to have anyone else that you know sign it as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PBOHIO
Independently Liberal
11:25 AM on 09/30/2011
This is a great idea. I will sign and have registered,,just waiting for that return e-mail. Thank you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:15 PM on 09/29/2011
There is no question the insurance industry is involved in "economic activity." So is Walmart, GM, Ford, et al, but that is not a lawful or rational basis by which to order all citizens to purchase their products.

Given the fact mandatory insurance was originally a Repub idea, there is little doubt "conservatives" on the Supreme Court will find it's a great idea.

What baffles me is why Dems (or "liberals") consider the most exploitive form of capitalism (forcing people to give global corporations our money) such a fine idea.

Medicare for all would have been a fine idea; mandatory insurance is not.
02:20 AM on 09/30/2011
FIRST:

Absolutely correct, but it sure does keep the issue on the front burner. Everyone blames Obama, or just Democrats in general, for not implementing a single-payer universal system but there were a few Democratic Senators who would have voted with every single Republican Senator against it. It would have had the same success as Hillary's plan in the 90s...which is to say exactly zero success and zero impact.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
clearasmud
De Tocqueville and Marx were both right
10:47 AM on 09/30/2011
Single Payer would have been a fact except for Joe Lieberman, The Washington Representative for the Insurance Companies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:02 PM on 09/30/2011
Insurance companies serve no useful purpose whatsoever in terms of providing universal health care.

Insurance companies mitigate risk for investors, they do not provide any other service.

If they cannot refuse to insure high risk, they have no purpose.

Dems claiming mandatory insurance is equivalent to universal health care is total nonsense. Mandatory insurance is a scam that primarily benefits insurance companies and no one else.

Dems should have never taken up the matter if they did not have the support for universal health care, which they clearly did not. Mandatory insurance is worse than doing nothing.
02:22 AM on 09/30/2011
SECOND:

The reality is that our entirely dysfunctional current system - with or without the new changes - has been rapidly and radically increasing in cost for the last 20 years, and the society cannot continue to bear that increasingly onerous financial burden. If we don't move very soon to a single-payer universal system, we will all have to agree instead to limit health care to more and more wealthy individuals as time goes on. Shifting the apparent costs of insurance from the employer to the employee is one way to inspire people to force a meaningful and total change.

We have to pay for it one way or the other. Either it reduces the amount of our salaries before we get the paycheck or it comes out of the gross salary amount printed on the paycheck (which would theoretically be a higher gross salary since the employer will be paying either less or nothing at all for the insurance).

The next step would be to actually reduce the cost we all have to pay...since it's really the total percent of GDP spent on all aspects of health care which is eating away at economic productivity right now. We spent about 6% of GDP on health care in the 1960s. We spend a little over 17% now...and most of that increase has occurred in the last 20 years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westronandnan
06:15 AM on 09/30/2011
As employers transfer more of the cost of healthcare to the employee --- larger co-pays for reduced coverage or even the elimination of healthcare insurance as an employee perquisite --- then and only then will there be a huge outcry as these folks will not be able to afford family healthcare coverage in the open market.

Debate on healthcare reform will only commence when huge numbers begin to feel the pain of the poor and unemployed.
06:28 PM on 10/10/2011
How about tort reform and ability to shop other states? while were at it stop big pharma from charging so much for drugs and Dotors and nurses from asking for pay raises all the time and hosp. from charging 1100 for a simple emergncy room vist?
photo
wolfdancer
Republicans -this is why we can't have nice things
09:51 PM on 09/29/2011
Why wouldn't a conservative (Republican) judge support the Affordable Care Act. After all it is a conservative (Republican) inspired health care plan. What this law does is mostly strength the so called "free-market" insurance industry. What is really funny here is that the tea baggers and Republicans are against it only because it came from Barack Obama.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:18 PM on 09/29/2011
The Secretary of the HHS, repeatedly and publicly stated that mandatory insurance is required to guarantee insurance company profits.

The act not only requires everyone to buy insurance, it also guarantees insurance companies profits.

That is a GOP dream come true on par with privatizing Socieal Security.
11:13 PM on 09/29/2011
As an investment banker and loyal Republican, I really hope that the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate.

Then my rich buddies and I can begin lobbying for mandatory retirement accounts instead of Social Security... and we'll have the law on our side!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
new beginning
Practice random acts of kindness-change the world
08:12 AM on 09/30/2011
Try as you might, you can't pin the monstrosity which is the obama care plan on the GOP.... You own it.....

How bizarre that you took a problem (rising healthcare costs which is limiting access to healthcare) and not only didn't do a thing to address the rising costs, but you actually took action to INCREASE costs! In what world do we need to spend an extra Trillion dollars in order to "save" money????

Astounding.......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
clearasmud
De Tocqueville and Marx were both right
10:53 AM on 09/30/2011
As usual the Fox originated "Facts" are incorrect.
ByAndForThePeople
and corporations aren't people!
08:34 PM on 09/29/2011
Stevens said, "They're not going to make up new law just because it might be good policy or something like that." Does he honestly believe that? The five "conservatives" on the Court had no problem with overturning all kinds of precedent, including precedents set by the Supreme Court itself just a handful of years (four?) earlier, when they ruled that money = speech and corporations have the same free speech rights as humans. This bunch will overturn the Ten Commandments if it will serve the agenda of the extreme right and corporatists.
02:26 AM on 09/30/2011
Neither legal precedent nor the Constitution mean anything to them. They've moved beyond those minor considerations. They act now very much like Greek gods poking and prodding American society to do their ideological bidding.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sloreader
writ this down
10:07 AM on 09/30/2011
Judicial activism on steroids.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jeff Norman
10:39 PM on 09/30/2011
Your argument indicates you’ve accepted a false premise. Actually, Stevens is wrong about it being settled law that Congress has the power to impose an economic mandate on the general population, and that the non-purchase of goods or services is activity that’s subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue. It’s a case of first impression.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:20 PM on 09/29/2011
I rather pay through taxes, than pay out of pocket to some company that only interested in prophets.
08:31 PM on 09/29/2011
PROFITS-NOT PROPHETS
09:22 PM on 09/29/2011
For the Right Wing - Prophets and Profits!!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:23 PM on 09/29/2011
Prophecies about profits.
photo
Rick4646
Union-worker, make working-class strong again
08:17 PM on 09/29/2011
I just can't believe how some Americans actually think that health insurers should have the right to play God and determine who gets covered and who doesn't. They make record profits, execs get multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses and in turn health care is the number one cause of bankruptcies in America. Health care should be a human right for all Americans; it's not a privelege, not for the fortunate, not for those to get gouged, and not to be denied for any legitimate medical care.
finallylegal
why,oh why, didn't I take the blue pill
08:55 PM on 09/29/2011
it's better than an atheistic,socialist government having the right to determine who gets covered and who doesn't. gov't wastes money and gives sub-standard returns. i don't want to get an operation at a wal-mart hospital just because my gov't health insurance will only cover me there.
09:37 PM on 09/29/2011
No it's not. Not in any way shape or form is it better for healthcare to be for profit. The ACA wants everyone to have access to coverage whereas the insurance companies want just healthy people to be covered.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1dabut1
Power is not alluring to pure minds. Thomas Jeffer
09:51 PM on 09/29/2011
which is still better the a gop/bagger/fascist, no insurance country. i'd explain that you don't have to take the governments insurance if you have your own, but that old news.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1dabut1
Power is not alluring to pure minds. Thomas Jeffer
09:44 PM on 09/29/2011
it's not that the gop/baggers are upset about national health care, it's just that they wanted it to go in their favor, where they have been investing their money, and according their plans, like take away SS, give you a few chits, then over the years they will get rid of those also. they want health care they just want to be able to rape it of every dime in it.
07:54 PM on 09/29/2011
THE FEDERAL GOVT CANT EVEN RUN SOCIAL SECURITY,MEDICARE,OR MEDICAID.THEY ACTUALLY THINK THEY CAN RUN HEALTH CARE.GIVE ME A BREAK.WELCOME TO SOCIALISM.THANKS OBAMA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opinioned1
08:14 PM on 09/29/2011
Are you nuts? Show me any socialism when you are required to buy insurance from *any* insurer in the nation, YOU chose with no mandates about who that would be.

Definition: Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy.

Not even close dude!!!
08:41 PM on 09/29/2011
To suppliment opinionated1's post, it is worth noting that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are actually run fairly well. They are organized relatively efficiently, and are responsible for bring care to many who wouldn't otherwise be able to get it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sloreader
writ this down
10:09 AM on 09/30/2011
Those facts get so in the way of the "point" he is making.
07:27 PM on 09/29/2011
Amazing how the uninsured have become the new welfare queens.

Prior to the passage of the ACA, we used describe the uninsured with like "needy", "struggling", "disadvantaged"... now, just read through the comments on this article and look how many times words like "freeloaders", "moochers", and "irresponsible" are used to refer to people without insurance. It's disgusting.
09:26 PM on 09/29/2011
Many people without health insurance desperately want it and are too poor to afford it.

I don't like the fact that the US is fighting two useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I still pay my taxes because that's what our elected leaders have decided to do.
photo
1LTUSMC
USMC-MENSA-ACLU-PTA
10:41 PM on 10/10/2011
I agree with you completely! It is getting tiresome trying to penetrate the solid granite GOTP brains, but it has to be done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
katyland
07:09 PM on 09/29/2011
Stevens is trying to back seat drive and we all know how bacjk seat drivers are,,, also he is pretty old and his mind is not as sharp,,
08:42 PM on 09/29/2011
What did Stevens say that was so controversial or obtuse? Was it his advice that judges should apply preexisting law in lieu of making new law?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
katyland
08:59 PM on 09/29/2011
Stevens contention that the case in 2005 banning medical marijuna, and healthcare are simalar,is over reach. Federal anti drug laws and the forcing citizens to purchase health care are not simalar, there is no preexisting law nor president to force citizens to purchase healthcare ,or to force citizens onto health care programs they do not want. useing the 2005 case,is as I said over reach,
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jeff Norman
10:45 PM on 09/30/2011
"What did Stevens say that was so controversial or obtuse? Was it his advice that judge should apply preexisting law in lieu of making new law?

Stevens is wrong about it being settled law that Congress has the power to impose an economic mandate on the general population, and that the non-purchase of goods or services is activity that’s subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue. It’s a case of first impression.
09:27 PM on 09/29/2011
You should have a mind as sharp as Justice Stevens.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
katyland
09:32 PM on 09/29/2011
would you be saying that if he was against obama care.