Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare challenge

[alnorth]

Oral argument in March. That the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal is not really a surprise, but what may be a surprise is the amount of time for oral arguments. The Obamacare supreme court oral argument will be 6 hours, which obliterates the modern record for longest oral argument. (in the earliest days of the court they had days of oral argument, but in the last couple generations, oral argument was typically one hour per case. The prior modern record was 4 hours in 2003 for a campaign finance reform law)

The court will hear arguments on four issues.

#1) The constitutionality of the requirement that almost all Americans obtain health insurance by 2014. (2 hours)

#2) If the mandate in #1 is struck down, will the entire law need to be struck down? (90 minutes)

#3) Does the anti-injunction act bar challenges to Obamacare's mandate. (in other words, if the answer to this question is yes, then the court will not answer #1, #2, and probably #4 at this time. The Obamacare challenge would be thrown out and the people who are opposed to the mandate would have to wait until 2014 to re-file the case) (90 minutes)

#4) The constitutionality of the expansion of Medicaid. (1 hour)

The court refused to hear challenges to the new requirements for employers, so that would stand unless the entire law was tossed.

Update:

Oral Argument Schedule:

Monday, March 26: Issue #3 (its probably fitting that this should be heard first)

Neither side wants to argue that the supreme court can't rule until 2015, so the supreme court appointed an outside attorney to make that argument. This is a rare issue where both the feds and the states agree.

Outside attorney: 40 minutes
Feds: 30 minutes
NFIB and states: 20 minutes

Tuesday, March 27: Issue #1

Feds: 1 hour
States: 30 minutes
NFIB: 30 minutes

Wednesday, March 28: Issues #2 and #4

Issue #2:

The states believe if the mandate is struck down, then the whole law must be struck down, and the feds believe if the mandate is struck down, the ban on pre-existing conditions must also be struck down. Neither side believes that only the mandate can be struck down, leaving the rest of the law intact, so the court appointed an outside attorney to make that argument.

Outside attorney: 30 minutes
Feds: 30 minutes
NFIB and states: 30 minutes

Issue #4:

Feds: 30 minutes
States: 30 minutes

[Chiefshrink]

It will be 5-4 in favor of Obamacare.

This is why we need a true conservative running for President who will neuter this legislation because I damn guarantee you Romney won't. He only sounds conservative when it's convenient like a true RINO will do. Obama wants Romney as his opposition for sooooooooooooo many reasons(many flip flops) but his biggest reason is that it takes Obamacare OFF the table because it really is Romneycare carbon copied.

Do any of you realize that in 2009 Obama had 3 of Romney's top healthcare advisors helped the regime put this Obamascare together?

OMarxist, The Marxist Dem party, Marxist Media and RINOs want Romney to be the Repub candidate to run against pure and simple.

[alnorth]

It may be dangerous to make predictions before any briefs or oral arguments, but I'd presume that if the anti-injunction act was going to be a serious issue, they would save themselves the additional 4.5 hours and just toss it out.

It is possible that the justices are genuinely undecided on that issue though, in which case it would be rather irritating for them to hear all aspects of this massive case only to send it out with a short note saying "not right now, come back in a few years and we'll start over"

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by alnorth

It may be dangerous to make predictions before any briefs or oral arguments, but I'd presume that if the anti-injunction act was going to be a serious issue, they would save themselves the additional 4.5 hours and just toss it out.

It is possible that the justices are genuinely undecided on that issue though, in which case it would be rather irritating for them to hear all aspects of this massive case only to send it out with a short note saying "not right now, come back in a few years and we'll start over"

Cynically, my perspective is that Roberts will attempt to punt the issue if Kennedy isn't on board with unconstitutionality. He's not above playing politics with cases, as demonstrated in Citizens United.

Edit: on further reflection/research, I think the anti-injunction act might be a non-starter.

The Supreme Court's most important ruling this year may have been its unanimous decision in Bond v. United States, which held that individual citizens can challenge federal statutes when they encroach on authority the Constitution reserves to the states.

With an unusual unanimity, the court held squarely that individual citizens have every right to challenge federal laws on the ground that they exceed the limited and enumerated powers vested in Congress by the Constitution. The court stated without equivocation that "[b]y denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When the government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...870957044.html

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Cynically, my perspective is that Roberts will attempt to punt the issue if Kennedy isn't on board with unconstitutionality. He's not above playing politics with cases, as demonstrated in Citizens United.

I could see that.

Perhaps that's why the anti-injunction material was thrown in there.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

It will be 5-4 in favor of Obamacare.

This is why we need a true conservative running for President who will neuter this legislation because I damn guarantee you Romney won't. He only sounds conservative when it's convenient like a true RINO will do.

The candidates are who they are. You're not going to get a conservative white knight riding in to save the day at the last minute. It's overwhelmingly likely that Mitt Romney will be the nominee and it's probable that he's the best chance the GOP has to unseat Obama anyway. Conservatives like you and me will be far better off with a President Romney picking the next couple of Supreme Court justices than President Obama no matter how RINO you think Romney is.

[Direckshun]

Going to be very interesting.

I wonder what Kennedy's history is on these sorts of issues. Any chance you have that information on hand, alnorth?

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Going to be very interesting.

I wonder what Kennedy's history is on these sorts of issues. Any chance you have that information on hand, alnorth?

Apparently he reads the Commerce Clause pretty broadly.

http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2011...-court-we.html

[petegz28]

It shouldn't be a 5-4 decision. What's her butt needs to recuse herself from the case.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

It shouldn't be a 5-4 decision. What's her butt needs to recuse herself from the case.

Clarence Thomas?

He's a guy. But I agree with you.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Clarence Thomas?

He's a guy. But I agree with you.

Why should he? Was he the one soliciting on behalf of Obama prior to his nomination?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Why should he? Was he the one soliciting on behalf of Obama prior to his nomination?

His wife has made a livelihood opposing various Obama programs, including and especially Obamacare, has she not?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

His wife has made a livelihood opposing various Obama programs, including and especially Obamacare, has she not?

You've convinced me. Clarence Thomas's wife should definitely recuse herself.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

His wife has made a livelihood opposing various Obama programs, including and especially Obamacare, has she not?

Not quite the same now is it?

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

His wife has made a livelihood opposing various Obama programs, including and especially Obamacare, has she not?

That's not a reason to recuse.

Neither Kagan nor Thomas should be prohibited from ruling because neither will be impacted or compromised by their supposed conflicts. That's one of the main litmus tests for recusal folks and we both know which way Kagan and Thomas are headed.