In case you have not yet heard, the Supreme Court is going to decide Obamacare.
From Fox News:
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama's signature law on health care, it said Monday in an announcement that has nearly as much impact on partisan politics as the final decision has on the law itself.
The challenge in the case, brought by 26 states out of Florida, is based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance.
The nine-member court will also look at severability, meaning if the mandate falls, could the rest of the law survive since it is primarily built on the revenues collected by forcing people to buy health care.
The court is also folding in an additional case on the tax implications of the law.
The case is one that all sides want heard. But hearing the case this session -- arguments could come in March -- means that a ruling will come in June -- in the heat of the 2012 election cycle.
Some argue that a defeat for Obama would be as beneficial as a victory since it would take away an economic and philosophical argument that Republicans have used to bash the law that will impact roughly 18 percent of the nation's annual gross domestic product. Others say nothing good could come for Obama if his premier legislative victory is declared unconstitutional.
According to the National Journal there are four specific areas that will be examined:
The individual mandate. The law's requirement that every individual purchase health insurance is at the heart of the many challenges to the law. The challengers contend that such a requirement is not permissible under the Constitution, because the commerce clause that authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce should not able to compel individuals to purchase a product they do not want.
So far, two appellate courts have rejected this argument, ruling that the mandate is acceptable. One court has sided with the challengers, overturning the mandate.
Severability. When the law was passed, members of Congress said the mandate was essential to make other insurance reforms in the law work. If the justices strike down the mandate, they will have to decide whether that means the law can stand without it, or the whole law must fall.
The one court to overturn the mandate, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, found that the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, and it ruled the whole law should be overturned.
Medicaid expansion: The health care law requires the states to expand eligibility for their Medicaid programs by offering coverage to anyone earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty limit. Critics have said it is an unconstitutional imposition on the states.
Jurisdiction. Judges in two appellate courts have argued that the time is not right for the courts to even consider whether the law is constitutional. They have cited an 18th-century law that prevents individuals from challenging their taxes until after they've been assessed and paid.
Obama and his team might be secretly hoping that the Supremes take Obamacare down. That way, one of the hot button issues for the GOP is gone.
Of course, the liberals on the Supreme Court maybe looking at the idea of lack of jurisdiction as a way to keep Obamacare alive until it becomes law and then the theory is it will be so popular no one will want it abolished.
As with many other cases, the Supremes will be split 4-4 with Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. Even though he was appointed by Reagan, that does not make me comfortable with the outcome.
The Supremes have set out five and a half hours for oral argument on this case.
The future of America rides on this case. If Obamacare is allowed to stand, it will do what socialized medicine has done everywhere. It will bankrupt the nation and destroy our healthcare system.
Sorry, but the Judiciary can take no action on its own doing. It also has no police force or army to enforce any of its decisions. It has to rely on the executive branch for that. The legislative branch has complete control over the Judicial banch.
Well, no a judge can write a warrant for a police officer to arrest someone.
James, the fact is judges do not "write" warrants, a member of law enforcement does that. But (at least until recently) only a judge can sign a warrant. However, I understand currently some federal law enforcement officers are being allowed to write and sign their own warrants, no judge needed, which is wrong in my humble, but totally correct opinion.
Actually, I have studied that area (American History) - for over fifty years - and, in that time, I have not seen a more absurdly incorrect statement than this one. Your statement is similar to other "myths" (Five Judicial Myths), concerning the supreme court, such as the claim that they are appointed for life. If you wish to contest my statement please be so kind as to avoid the "Conversational Terrorism" that has been the main stay of all your previous posts and cite actual historical documents - in the full context of their use and within the framework of their "Original Intent":
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson
You are absolutely 100% correct Landis. Judges appointed by presidents in both parties from both parties. I say get rid of the entire stinking federal district court system along with the appellate districts. I read an article that stated that stated that 68 district judges are over 90 years old. They are sitting near their graves for goodness sakes. Also, I have been learning some of this judges have shares in these new fangled private prisons.
BY LAW, KAGAN MUST RECUSE HERSELF FROM THIS CASE!!!!
fat chance brad , that bitch is not going to do that. she is a communist all the way. just looking at pictures of her shows me just how dispickable she is.
Yea, Kagan will recuse herself right after the Attorney GeneraL Eric Holder resigns and appologizes for Fast and Furious, these communists dont care about us or the law, they are beyond that now.
According to Obama, what law?? He's creating his own as he goes along. The simple fact that he is not carrying out his oath of office is a reason to charge him for treason.
This issue stresses the importance of who we elect to the Senate. It is they who confirm or deny these Supreme Court nominees. Remember, we cannot lobby the Supreme Court, only Congress. If we wish to return the third branch of our government to it's original constitutional values, the Senate is where OUR voice is heard. This makes 2012 even more important.
We need to pray. Our whole way of life is at stake. This obamacare is an outrage.