Health Care Law Takes Twisted Path To The Supreme Court (SLIDESHOW)

The Obama administration this week urged the Supreme Court to decide once and for all the constitutionality of the 2010 health care overhaul. With the Court all but certain to hear the case next spring and decide it by the end of June, the justices have a wealth of advice from the lower courts to guide their decision.

The so-called individual mandate is the centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is the signature legislative achievement of Obama's first term. The mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, says that virtually all Americans must purchase minimum health insurance coverage or pay a penalty in their next tax return.

Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Congress has the power under the Constitution's commerce clause to regulate economic conduct that substantially affects interstate commerce. But almost immediately after Congress passed the health care act last year, lawsuits were filed in federal courts to argue that the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it seeks to regulate inactivity -- namely, a person's decision to go without health insurance.

The government responded in court that the decision not to buy health insurance is hardly inactivity; rather, it is an active choice that affects the national health care market. Further, the government contended that because the law essentially characterizes the penalty for not obtaining minimum coverage as a tax, Congress' taxing power gave it authority independent of the commerce clause to pass the law.

In the year since, among the federal judges who have heard challenges to the act, all but one judge appointed by a Democratic president upheld the individual mandate's constitutionality, while all but one Republican-appointed judge struck it down. Some decisions were sweeping, others were narrow. Most judges tackled the issue on the merits, but a few dispatched the case on technicalities. And now, with the flurry of petitions for Supreme Court review filed Thursday, it's worth looking back at the paths the justices may take in reaching their final judgment.

Comments

[docallen001]

05:58 AM on 10/02/2011

So much for justice is blind. For the most part judges picked by Repubs against and judges picked by Dems for. Why do I think that if law generated from a Repub President, Dems would still be for, but Repubs would also be for? Shame on me for thinking that.

[Charles Queen]

01:23 PM on 10/01/2011

The health care plan is just no good,period.At least in it's present from.The talk is that whoever gets in this time is that their going to scrap it anyways and that would be the wisest move they could make with it

[docallen001]

06:03 AM on 10/02/2011

Legislation like this should not be scrapped. It should be improved. That is what happened with Social Security and Medicare. If the Repubs do scrap, there will not be a replacement for decades or at least until health costs start bankrupting the country and even the bought Congress realized that something had to be done.

[slocomgp]

09:20 AM on 10/02/2011

Health costs are already bankrupting the country, its citizens anyway.

[Kevin Hagen]

09:15 PM on 10/12/2011

Charles, as a disabled American vet, I am told you have the most affordable and best single payer plan there is, and unfortunate as you circumstances maybe, I would thing you wake many a day appreciating your coverage, something many others don't have the privilege..
Although not inexpensive the program is designed to spread , shared sacrifice (a catchy term) with each one us being our brothers keeper when things do not occur as we intended, just s your once employer is watching out for you now.
I hope you think about that when you see many of fighting to have someone watching our back and knowing were helping those who are becoming more apparent by the day here in Florida Street corners. Meaning the sick, elderly and indegent.

[Charles Queen]

09:56 PM on 10/12/2011

I think what I was trying to say is that the health care plan in it's present from needs to be redone,it's full of to many flaws.It's also causing thousand upon thousands of small buisnesses to cloe their doors and relocate overseas putting thousands of more people out of work.It's because the small buisneses cannot aford the tax's for the health care plan.In no way though would I want to see these people have to go without health care.This has been said many times and I'll say it again.It or government were to legalize marijuana for adult use nation wide it would erase the national deficit within 3-4 years or sooner,put every stae in the black again within 2-3 years easily.ouls more than take care of s.s./SSi/military disability and medicare-aide as well.No, it's not a permamnent fix-it but it would wipe our slate clean and give those in washington ample time to come up with a real and very viable wroking plan to get our country back on it's feet and people back to ork.This go's so way beyond simply allowing a person to use marijuana legaly,the positive aspects are to many to list here and the negative aspects,well there really are not any

[calloy]

12:07 PM on 10/01/2011

if the supreme court strikes down the individual mandate, that opens the door for single-payer universal healthcare, which is what it should have been in the first place.

[fairchilds]

12:38 PM on 10/01/2011

Well, if the republicans get in the majority after the elections, don't hold your breath waiting for them to look at single-payer healthcare any time soon.

Vote 2012

[calloy]

02:36 PM on 10/01/2011

replacing the congress is essential, of course. you can count the vast majority of the teabie-jeebies out. very few voters will get burned on that again. plus, the general dislike the gop has for their own candidates will depress their turnout. 2013 will look much different than today.

[NoSandwiches]

10:39 AM on 10/01/2011

State of Washington doesn't want to be in the law suit. The Attourney General decided on his own to do it despite the Governor and Legislature and really the majority of Washingtonians. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2016366900_inslee_rips_mckenna_over_lates.html

[docallen001]

06:05 AM on 10/02/2011

Thanks for that. I could not figure out why Washington was on the list of states fighting. Did not seem right. Worth a fan.

[taddles]

02:53 AM on 10/01/2011

So, 2 Federal judges for the mandate, 2 Federal judges against the mandate, one circuit court for, one against and one abstains. Tied up going into the final inning.

[quixmar]

08:25 PM on 09/30/2011

If Obama's goal was to get everyone to "pay" for healthcare, why not pass a law to get them to "pay" for healthcare, rather than destroying the healthcare system? Sheesh! If you have problems with getting healthcare, go to an airport. You'll get a free X-Ray and breast examination and if you mention Al Qeada, you also get a free colonoscopy.

[taddles]

02:54 AM on 10/01/2011

Um that's what ACA does.

Good one about the airport though. ;o)

[Mochilero]

07:17 PM on 09/30/2011

The SCOTUS needs to step up and make itself known on this, as well as making a definitive statement on Roe V Wade which is being nickeled and dimed to death. Let the chips fall where they may. What is going on at the moment is anarchy, and it serves no one.

[taddles]

02:55 AM on 10/01/2011

Well Roe is long decided law and the SCOTUS is stepping up to decide this case.

[Mochilero]

05:12 AM on 10/01/2011

It would appear that Roe is long decided law. It is also apparent that numerous states have been emboldened to find creative ways to invalidate it. At this point it is time to force the issue because while a woman's Constitutional right to choose may be settled law, in practice that right is becoming severely or entirely curtailed.

[gaydood]

06:56 PM on 09/30/2011

Tim The Enchanter.

950 Fans
Become a fan

.

46 minutes ago (6:08 PM)
Only a few iddeeots ever wanted that. It never even came close to reality.
>>>

timmy nice spin as always:)
the repubs want the mandate as far back as 1993

now go back to bed

[taddles]

02:56 AM on 10/01/2011

Tim is full of crap, his understanding of anything resembling the law wouldn't fill a gnats navel.

[MovieGuy2010]

06:45 PM on 09/30/2011

We have too many graduates of the Glenn Beck school of Consitutional Law making sweeping statements here...So, it's good if everybody read on two historic events that shape this battle and make a lot of what the trolls say simply wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._South-Eastern_Underwriters_Association

And then reads about the McCarn-Fergeson act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran-Ferguson_Act

To see how we got here?

Why DOES the insurance industry have immunity from most of the Anti-trust laws, but are prohibited from selling across state lines? Anyone? Conservatives?

Because THAT is the deal they wanted, they were afraid of the Sherman act, so the McCrran Ferguson act takes care of that.

Oh, and you get a lot of these characters saying "Because they CAN'T SELL across state lines, the Commerce Clause doesn't apply...

Read the FIRST case I posted, United_States_v._South-Eastern_Underwriters_Association.

Already ruled insurance IS interstate commerce.

Roberts et all would have to undo a decision from 1944 to upset that apple cart and even with Citizen United, I have trouble seeing them do that, especially with McCarran-Ferguson still the law of the land.

[Tim The Enchanter]

06:22 PM on 09/30/2011

How to save health care -

http://www.redstate.com/john_ashman/2009/08/28/medicalretirement-savings-accounts/

I dare any one to find any major problem at all with it.

[gaydood]

06:56 PM on 09/30/2011

heres the repubs HC plan:

[Tim The Enchanter]

09:35 PM on 09/30/2011

So? What's wrong with mine?

[Tim The Enchanter]

11:18 PM on 09/30/2011

BTW, here is the power the Constitution gives to the federal government to deal with health care:

[fairchilds]

12:23 PM on 10/01/2011

Well, one problem would be that your money would be hit to cover the administration of your fund.
Employed handlers have to make a living from your money. It is called overhead.
Medicare right now has about a 4-5% overhead cost.
Somehow I don't believe that a hired handler is going to be content with just 4-5%.
Do you?

[dconklyn]

06:11 PM on 09/30/2011

Again, my question is will "i!!egal immigrants" be mandated to buy insurance for their @nchor b@bies?

[MovieGuy2010]

06:27 PM on 09/30/2011

Again,. do you have any understanding of HOW they get treatment now?

Reagan's baby, a 40 year unfunded mandate, dumped on the taxpayers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

Read and TRY to understand, the story that Rush, Beck and FAUX is telling you is 10% facts, 90% propaganda designed to keep you in the dark.

[dconklyn]

06:53 PM on 09/30/2011

I'm not referring to the act you cited. I'm referring to the fact that these babies are automatically enrolled into Medicaid and usually remain on it until they are 18! BTW, I don't listen to Rush, Beck, etc., I actually watch CNN!

[gaydood]

06:57 PM on 09/30/2011

working babies must buy HC

and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Tim The Enchanter]

06:07 PM on 09/30/2011

11. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion.

12. The right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't a right at all and has nothing to do with the Founders wanting the people to have the power to overthrow and oppressive government in any case.

[quixmar]

08:33 PM on 09/30/2011

Liberals really need to stop trying to revise history. People are starting to wake up to the lies.

President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” is a repudiation of the declarations of just about every national leader before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. "Of such efforts," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.”

[hearmeloudandclear]

01:38 AM on 10/01/2011

quixmar -- Would you provide a link to where the President said

"do not consider ourselves a Christian nation”

I agree with Rehnquist --- no amount of repetition of historical errors..can make errors true?

Is your quote true?

[rae112754]

03:15 AM on 10/01/2011

Or in other words there is no fixing stupid

[demsrsilly]

05:56 AM on 10/02/2011

Yes, both are true. 

The libs will scream Roe v. Wade is settled law, and they are right.

But so is D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

[Tim The Enchanter]

06:07 PM on 09/30/2011

Here's what you have to believe about the Constitution is you're a "liberal".

1. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, had absolutely no clue about what the document means.

2. His explanation of the the Power to Tax clause in the Federalist Papers to assuage New Yorkers that "don't worry, the government won't ever claim that "general welfare" is a power to spend money" holds absolutely no water.

3. Hamilton, who believed in royal titles and lifetime political appointments and other ENGLISH CONSERVATIVE ideas is a "liberal" genius for arguing that "general welfare" IS a power to spend money, despite being hated by most of the other founders of the country and getting killed by one of them. Never mind that he first came up with that idea AFTER the document was signed.

4. "Among" means "inside"

5. Commerce not an exchange of goods, services and money, it is everything.

6. "general welfare of the United States" means "specific welfare of individuals"

7. "Congress shall make no law" means "Congress can make a law".

8. That Congress can outlaw the growth of a single mariuana plant for personal use because it "affects" illegal interstate drug trade by reducing illegal activity and we can't have that.

9. Taking land from an individual and selling it to a corporation qualifies as "public use".

10. Freedom of speech applies to every type of group except for corporations, even though all speech is protected by the First Amenment.

[gaydood]

06:58 PM on 09/30/2011

u work for foxnewspeak?

[Tim The Enchanter]

09:35 PM on 09/30/2011

I don't know what that is.

[taddles]

03:00 AM on 10/01/2011

Utter garbage. Complete fail. Typical bagger nonsense.

[demsrsilly]

06:03 AM on 10/02/2011

no, he is correct about #9.

The liberal justices ruled in Kelo v. New London that the government could force the sale of an individuals property for the government to then sell it to a corporation. 

Can not get much more pro-corporation than that.

Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and also Kennedy ruled in favor of a huge corporation, which in Kelo v. New London was Pfizer.

I await your outrage at the liberal justices for being so pro-corporation.

[demsrsilly]

06:04 AM on 10/02/2011

Oh it is you, the person that lied about where the Solyndra money came from.

[PaulArt]

05:47 PM on 09/30/2011

A nation with healthy people consumes less healthcare and a nation where demand for healthcare is less will pay less for it. 40% of Americans are obese. Our eating habits and what we eat is in control of us rather than the other way about. We need to change our whole approach to food, eat more healthy food and exercise more. This is a better way to control healthcare costs rather than legislation. We need legislation that discourages mechanized industrial farming of food, poultry and livestock. Food production should be encouraged to be more local and less centralized. Single payer and other insurance schemes even if passed into law will only have marginal effect because it would not drive down the demand for healthcare. The single biggest driver of healthcare cost is demand. Demand and Supply, simple. The hoarder, speculator, black-marketeer, insurance peddler, the American Medical Association, they are merely gaming the market for their benefit - no market, no gaming.

[CactusChris]

06:01 PM on 09/30/2011

I disagree we need unhealthy people to keep the population down....let them eat, drink, and smoke thmeselves to death,etc. Its there right do so !

[theframingone]

05:36 PM on 09/30/2011

to force an American to buy something or pay a fine is UNCONSTITUTIONAL , and since the current administration has clearly on a number of occasions violated and then twisted and distorted the constitution to their advantage , I have absolutely no faith in any courts to uphold the constitutional rights we WERE guaranteed , they shove their agendas down our throats and have removed our constitutional rights via the "patriot act" and love the control , so they want complete control and will stop at nothing less

[gaydood]

05:42 PM on 09/30/2011

no its not
call the gopee and ask they why they want the mandate

[Tim The Enchanter]

06:08 PM on 09/30/2011

Only a few iddeeots ever wanted that. It never even came close to reality.

[fairchilds]

01:07 PM on 10/01/2011

To force an American to buy something or pay a fine....such as vehicle insurance,

a business license, a fishing license, life preservers on your boat....

yeah those are all just so unconstitutional

(yep, there's the old 'shoved down our throats' argument that has been around for two and a half years; wish you guys would get some new writers for your memos)

[theframingone]

06:30 PM on 10/01/2011

everything you listed is a choice , you don t have to do any of them if you don t want to , the health care issue , you have no choice , you buy the ins or pay the fine , so your argument holds no merit , you are exactly what the government wants , people to be so blinded to the reality of the situation , they cant see the details , so yes having to buy health ins or pay a fine is the government shoving ti down our throats , you need to wake up and see the whole picture and stop having the wool pulled over your eyes by your government