Supreme Court grants certiorari in health care cases

[FromWayDowntown]

It actually granted 3 different petitions.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/court-sets-5-12-hour-hearing-on-health-care/

It's an interesting grant. Per SCOTUSBlog, the Court granted argument on particular issues while denying review on other issues. Based on this grant, it will hear:


1. the constitutionality of the requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance by 2014,

2. whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down,

3. whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate, and

4. the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled.

It will not review challenges to new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers.

[FromWayDowntown]

http://acalitigationblog.blogspot.com/

[CosmicCowboy]

Interesting. Thanks!

[101A]

If the requirement dies; then the law is pointless; just a bunch of regulation that will drive up costs per head; it is paid for largely by capturing premium from "freeloaders" on the system.

[FromWayDowntown]

In the event that you really want to follow law wonk discussions about these cases, the blog I posted above is (I'm told) quite a good resource.

There's also this page from SCOTUSblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/category/special-features/aca/

The posts there are written almost entirely by attorneys who are frequent advocates before the Supreme Court (it's a pretty exclusive bar) and have both a very strong handle on the substantive law concepts at issue and a nuanced knowledge of the Justices and their philosophies (well beyond "Justice Scalia is a conservative" and "Justice Ginsberg is a liberal").

[boutons_deux]

Words Still Matter, Even in the Supreme Court

The most powerful line in conservative Judge Laurence Silberman’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act last week is a blunt statement that the law’s opponents “cannot find real support” for their arguments “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.”

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up this case later this year, Silberman’s words are a stern reminder that the text of the Constitution must guide judges’ decisions, especially in politically charged cases, and that Silberman’s fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court must ignore the temptation to place politics over fidelity to the Constitution by striking down the Affordable Care Act.

There can be no question that Silberman is right about what the Constitution has to say about this law. The federal government’s power is not unlimited—the Constitution gives Congress a laundry list of “enumerated powers,” and Congress cannot stray beyond this list—but its authority is quite sweeping when it regulates nationwide commercial markets such as the market for health care services. In the Constitution’s words, Congress may “regulate commerce . . . among the several states.”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/11/supreme_court_aca.html