iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Sam Stein
GET UPDATES FROM Sam:

Barack Obama Confident That Supreme Court Will Let His Health Care Law Stand

Posted: 04/ 2/2012 3:01 pm Updated: 04/ 2/2012 9:47 pm

Obama Health Care Supreme Court

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama offered his first public comments on the Supreme Court's hearing of his signature health care law, telling reporters that he believed the court will rule that it is constitutional.

Appearing at a press conference in the Rose Garden alongside Prime Minster Stephen Harper of Canada and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, Obama explained that he was confident the Affordable Care Act would be upheld for a series of reasons. First and foremost, he made the case that precedent was on his side, noting that two staunchly conservative lower court justices had agreed that penalizing people who didn't purchase insurance coverage was within Congress' power under the commerce clause.

Secondly, the president underscored the issues that would arise from repealing the legislative components of the law that had already been implemented. He noted that millions of children have been given insurance coverage under the law, that changes have been made to Medicare's prescription drug program and that insurance industry reforms have already been put in place.

"This is not an abstract argument," he declared. "People's lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the in-affordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of pre-existing conditions ... I think the American people understand and I think that the justices should understand that in the absence of the individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care."

"So there not only is an economic element to this, and a legal element to this, there is also a human element to this," he added.

The most forceful of the president's points was the third. Overturning the health care law, he argued, would resemble the very type of judicial activism that conservatives have routinely lamented. The Affordable Care Act passed both chambers of Congress and was signed into law by the president. To ignore such a definitive legislative stamp of approval would be a form of judicial overreach, Obama argued.

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," the president concluded. "And I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

The president's defense of the law comes at a time when few others are confident in its future. The oral arguments from last week prompted intensely nervous reactions within Democratic circles and chatter that the White House had fumbled the legal case. The president's legal team could have tried to move the ruling till 2014, some argued, when the individual mandate goes into effect.

Top administration officials told reporters earlier on Monday that the president had read the transcripts of the oral argument. They could not confirm whether or not he had discussed the case with his Solicitor General. Those same officials, meanwhile, refused to discuss what type of plans are being made to replace the individual mandate should it be ruled unconstitutional and severable from the rest of the law.

The White House has said, previously, that there are no such plans in the works. But a top Democratic official, who spoke anonymously to discuss administration deliberations, confirmed that the health care team has discussed what type of policies could compel insurance purchases while simultaneously passing a test of constitutionality, as defined by Chief Justice John Roberts.

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama offered his first public comments on the Supreme Court's hearing of his signature health care law, telling reporters that he believed the court will rule that it i...
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama offered his first public comments on the Supreme Court's hearing of his signature health care law, telling reporters that he believed the court will rule that it i...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 27,772
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (346 total)
  1 of 19  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
J0E1 06:41 PM on 04/02/2012
"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," the president concluded

Hey Barack, you realize if this was the case, then schools would still be segregated in Brown v. Board of Education right?  Isn't this the point of the  Read More...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
09:46 PM on 04/25/2012
I'm very interested to see how the judges will rule on this one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:34 PM on 04/08/2012
Let’s just go over what the President said...

“the proper role of judges” is “to apply the laws as written, and not to advance their own agendas” because “elected officials, not appointed judges,” are supposed “to represent the popular will.”

“...is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public.”

Now let’s go over which President said them.

George W. Bush.

The first was a October 6, 2008 statement by George W. Bush in a speech to the Federalist Society of Cincinnati. The second was from the 2008 Republican Party Platform from the convention in 2008.

Some things never change...
04:50 AM on 04/10/2012
He wasn't talking about the SCOTUS. This was about the radical Calif. Judges
photo
ProCynic
Those that govern intend to be our masters.
01:11 PM on 04/05/2012
Obama just blinked.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
12:39 PM on 04/05/2012
I don't see what the big deal is. We have three equal branches of government and checks and balances each on the other. If the president wants to apply pressure to the SC with rhetoric is that any different than the pressure he applies to congress or that congress applies to him?

It may not be wise, and when it is as fundamentally flawed as to say that the SC striking down a legislatively passed and executively signed law is unprecedented, it probably won't work, since that is the primary purpose of the SC. But you can't blame the president for trying. If O-care gets struck down and he didn't apply that pressure he'd be kicking himself.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:57 AM on 04/05/2012
Socialized Health Care has to start somewhere and sometime. My spouses premiums keep going
up and up while my VA Care stays put and it is a form of Soicalized Health Care.
Plus when I have an appointment for 8:30 a.m. I go in on the moeny while my spouse may have
to wait a hour to a hour and half to be seen by her doctor yet she pays thru the nose for her
healthcare provider. Otherwise Insurance companies will keep raising premiums for high profit
margins.
photo
INDIVIDUALTERRY
no to the collective!
12:11 PM on 04/05/2012
Really ? No kidding. Well i spent the first half of my life in the military and what i remember best was the waiting and waiting to see a doctor or nurse. I once waited three hours to see a doc for my broken foot.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:17 AM on 04/06/2012
Never happen in my unit.
09:48 AM on 04/09/2012
Private insurance premiums keep going up b/c people go to the doctor to see if they're healthy instead of seeing a doctor b/c they're sick! Half the crap they do as far as testing is not necessary, but the general public has been brainwashed to believe that you NEED annual tests and meds to ensure survival. It's a game that makes the doctors and pharmaceutical companies rich. While they're getting rich SOMEONE has to pay for it. Tests used to be done to confirm a doctor's suspicions, not to rule everything out. The best: Obama's newest socialistic issue: free birth control for all. NOTHING IS FREE. Just exactly WHO do you think is going to pick up the difference for no copays? Obama's plan is also forces employers to provide preventive services that go against their religious beliefs and forces people to purchase insurance. One word: UNCONSTITUTIONAL! We ARE NOT a country with socialized medicine at this point in time. Until we are, and the program is offered directly through the gov't, Obama and his administration need to stay out of it, period! You can't tell employers what they must cover (especially stuff that is NOT medically necessary but merely a lifestyle CHOICE) and demand that services be covered in full with no copay. The gov't isn't footing the bill! Leave the insurance stuff up to those that know the ins and outs until the gov't is ready to socialize our medical industry and foot the bills themselves!
08:36 AM on 04/05/2012
If he were so confident he wouldn't have needed to comment but just let the SCOTUS decision unfold.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
12:42 PM on 04/05/2012
An excellent point. Most presiudents in the same situation present their case and then cross their fingers. It is Obama's actions that seem rare, if not unprecedented.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
boehnerstan
anti establishment is SO in
08:19 AM on 04/05/2012
How about the SCOTUS overruling the 22nd Amendment? After all, if Justices get lifetime tenure on the court through a completely political appointment process, why cant the President serve until the people decide to change leadership? Where are the checks and balances on the SCOTUS? I fail to find any.
09:29 AM on 04/05/2012
i agree that the SC should age out
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
12:53 PM on 04/05/2012
Checks and balances on the court are in the appointment process. The prez appoints, but the Senate confirms.

You must admit that the left has been more successful at getting justices confirmed that stay true to the liberal ideology than the right has been with regards to their ideology. Had Kennedy or Stevens acted more as the right expected then O-care would meet certain doom. If the justices nominated by the left had been as inconsistently to liberalism, same thing. As lucky as the left has been in this regard it is amazing that they are making such a stink over it now.

Another check is that if SCOTUS rules a law unconstitutional then the legislature can rewrite the law so that it meets constitutional muster. Remember, the justices did not make the court a political tool. It was the office of the president and the makeup of the senate that did that. It seemed to start with FDR who openly declared in a major speech the types of justices he would appoint from here on out after he was angered by the court striking down some of his Raw Deal.

Incidentally, FDR severed nearly 4 terms until he left office via death. I wonder if Dems were complaining about that. I wasn't there, so perhaps they were.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
americanalien
Veteran Commenter
11:49 PM on 04/04/2012
With a Republican Supreme Court already in place, America is just one Republican Administration away from becoming a full blown Third World country.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
12:55 PM on 04/05/2012
LOL! Why the right use to say that very same thing when the court was left ... once upon a time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
10:03 PM on 04/04/2012
Extrordinary rendition and waterboarding for Roberts and Scalia. We need to find out out what foriegn country they're working for. Then we need to nuke that country.
04:07 AM on 04/05/2012
laughing..........frustrating isn't it for you
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
07:55 AM on 04/05/2012
Thanks to this court it's well within presidential powers. ;-)
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
12:58 PM on 04/05/2012
They never thought the judicial activism they so readily practiced would come back to haunt/bite them.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
12:57 PM on 04/05/2012
LOL! So you are willing to resort to nukes when you don't get your way? You sound more Iranian or North Korean than you you do American.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
01:07 PM on 04/05/2012
How do you know they aren't working for Iran or North Korea. We haven't waterboarded them yet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
09:59 PM on 04/04/2012
The problem with this SCOTUS is we have too few Justices. We need at least another eight pronto.
04:08 AM on 04/05/2012
so change the constitution.......laughing
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
08:58 AM on 04/05/2012
The total number of Justices isn't set in the Constitution. Take a civics course. . . . .laughing. :-D
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
01:04 PM on 04/05/2012
That is exactly what FDR wanted to do. Labelled his "Court Packing Plan" he wanted to add 6 more justices that shared his views since the court was stiking down some (not all) of his Raw Deal. The congress did not approve and the court remained at 9 justices -- a number that is constitutionally set by congress as part of the checks and balancing system. It prevents a president from loading up the court just because he is having a little temper tantrum over not getting his way. FDR threw his tantrum in 1937; you are seeing a little display of it here today and the SC hasn't even ruled on O-care yet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
01:25 PM on 04/05/2012
The number was set to nine in the Judiciary Act of 1869 before that it ten in the Judiciary Act of 1863. You could well see twenty in the Judiciary Act of 2013.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zeroes
09:46 PM on 04/04/2012
Left & Right are finally united in whom did we elect.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
10:00 PM on 04/04/2012
Sue you are Bagger.
photo
spud3
Forward into oblivion
08:52 AM on 04/05/2012
And you are a baggie.
09:27 PM on 04/04/2012
I still don't know why there isn't an outrage of scalia not recusing himself from this case. His wife is active in a tea party group powered to outlaw Obama's health care plan.
04:10 AM on 04/05/2012
so be outraged..........if that makes you feel better
09:32 AM on 04/05/2012
laughing as your post lasted a good while........
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zeroes
07:54 PM on 04/04/2012
Who pays attention anymore to this mistake.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
09:59 PM on 04/04/2012
You do. :-D
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
01:08 PM on 04/05/2012
If it weren't for you telling us you weren't paying attention we wouldn't know you weren't paying attention.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justin Credible69
Seeking wisdom perpetually
07:30 PM on 04/04/2012
Does anyone take what this man says seriously anyway?? This is the same guy who promised 1)Expand and make refundable the child and dependent care credit NOT
2)Automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans for workers whose employers offer retirement plans NOT
3)Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year NOT
4)Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 NOT
5)Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses NOT
6)Allow imported prescription drugs NOT
7)Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs NOT
8)Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center NOT
etc etc etc....I could go on for days....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
boehnerstan
anti establishment is SO in
08:26 AM on 04/05/2012
Unlike the SCOTUS, the POTUS needs Congress to change law. We don't appoint kings, we elected Presidents, Senators and Representatives, and every last one of them shares responsibility in helping create that list. I'm sure if you have the intellect to know what was not done, you have the intellect to figure out WHY it was not done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justin Credible69
Seeking wisdom perpetually
12:47 PM on 04/05/2012
If you would indulge me, please explain how such an impressive "leader" like Obama cannot get a single PERSON let alone democrat to vote for his budget. Explain to me if you will, why, with a majority in the house AND senate for two years none of these promises could be accomplished? I will tell you the truth. He has pandered to the extreme left while trying to maintain his moderate "mirage" to the public. You cannot do both and be successful, you must commit and execute the policies you believe in. Clinton knew this and THAT is why he worked with Gingrich balanced the budgets and got reelected so easily, Obama will not.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
01:16 PM on 04/05/2012
They had the power to do it all when Obama was first elected. They dragged their feet and ran out of time. His own guy said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." They procrastinated, lost their focus and bickered amongst themselves while the clock ticked them out of superpower.

They should be kicking themselves for the missed opportunity just like Republicans should be kicking themselves for not being financially prudent when they had the chance. The GOP's infighting with Moderate Republicans (on fiscal matters) did them in. They failed to unite just as Obama, the self proclaimed uniter, couldn't unite his own party. He could have done all that he promised and more. The fact that he didn't is more his and his own party's fault than it is the GOP's.
photo
spud3
Forward into oblivion
08:53 AM on 04/05/2012
You forgot transparency. NOT
photo
flaconoire
Anartist
05:50 PM on 04/04/2012
There is no "economic element" without "human element"