The Supreme Court kicked off the first day of arguments in the case against the Affordable Care Act this morning -- it's the first three-day hearing in 45 years -- but today was arguably the least interesting day. At issue was not the individual mandate that conservatives loved until President Obama decided he agreed with them, but rather, an 1867 law about taxes called the Anti-Injunction Act.
The underlying concept is pretty straightforward: before a tax can be challenged in court, it has to be collected first. As this relates to "Obamacare," the question is whether the high court should even hear the case: if the health care mandate is enforced through a tax penalty, and that tax won't be collected until 2014 at the earliest, then it's possible that the Anti-Injunction Act should delay the proceedings.
At least, that was the issue before the justices today. Is the mandate provision a "tax"? And if it is, should the Supreme Court punt the case for a few years? Jonathan Cohn, after hearing the arguments in the chamber, reported that the justices seemed unlikely to push this off until 2014.
To be clear, the Court could find that the mandate was not a tax, for the purposes of the anti-injunction act, but that it is a tax, for purposes of the mandate's constitutionality. In fact, that's what the administration has been arguing.
Neither Breyer nor Ginsburg made clear how they thought about that. But one of their conservative colleagues, Justice Samuel Alito, expressed some skepticism when he put a question directly to Don Verrilli, solicitor general: "Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?" Verrilli said, no, although he argued that other precedents suggested the government's reading was correct.
After the hearing, at least one attorney who was present for oral argument agreed that the justices seemed to be telegraphing skepticism of the tax argument. "Several asked questions that made it clear they were going to give the government a workout tomorrow on whether the mandate is a tax," said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, who has filed an amicus belief on behalf of state legislators who support the law.
Assuming the justices are unmoved by Anti-Injunction Act concerns, today will effectively serve as a speed-bump in advance of tomorrow's arguments over the constitutionality of the mandate itself.
To hear today's oral arguments in their entirety, the Supreme Court released the audio recordings of the proceedings, and they're available in this clip:
Leave a Comment:
America is not a place where citizens are forced to die in a hospital waiting room because of a lack of health insurance. The Court's majority and their right-wing conservative allies will steamroll over "Obamacare" for nothing but partisan reasons, not looking at it as a law but rather as a political entity to be crushed in an election year. Every conservative on the court needs to recuse themselves from this case due to their deep political ties to the Republicans fighting against health care. Health care a is a basic right endowed to every single American. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
I would find it difficult to believe that they would be so bold.. Of course, there is Citizens United to consider on the slippery slope.
What a bunch of hypocrites: the individual mandate was a Republican idea. Now that Obama agrees, it's Socialism and will TAKE AWAY your FREEDOM.
These people are absolutely despicable. Romney one of the most despicable, and most hypocritical.
As for the Supreme Court, I believe they made GWB president and passed Citizens United! Do I trust what they will do? LOL
You all are a little misinformed about Emergency Room and hospital billing practices. One of my adult children lost her insurance when she became unemployed...sound familiar? She became ill and almost died of dehydration. At the hospital she explained that she had no insurance. No problem;we'll give you the charity rate of 40% off. That still left bills of well over $30,000. They call her for the money. She still can't work, but when she does go back to work, her wages will be garnished immediately. Actually, it won't go that far, because no one will hire some one who owes large sums of money. Don't say they won't let you die. They won't, but chances are, your future is pretty bleak. Insurance for those who can afford it. State insurance for those who can't.
Unless Obamacare stands, Grace, affordable insurance just ain't gonna' happen in America.
Are they only disputing this one item about Obamacare? If this is decided in favor of the GOP what else is at stake? God, Americans really need Obamacare. We ate and drank what they sold us. Not to mention we took the bitter pills they prescribed. Now that a lot of us have become sick over the garbage they gave us they want us to pay an outragious amount for the freedom of seeing a Doctor.
THE UNREPORTED SCANDAL
Rep. Michelle Bachman was, according to reports, on of the 60 or so "members of the public" to get tickets. How? Did she wait in the all-weekend que? Did she dragoon a staffer on pain of dismissal to do so for her? Did she deal with a scalper?
Well?
She has now been crowned as The Queen of the cutesie one liners. I saw her Tiara. She had to bow down on both knees. She's actually The Evil Queen Witch from Storyland. We are merely her Muppet Puppets. I give up. She is trying to hurt all the childen of this Country. There is only one reason to be against Obamacare and that is deep down they know it will succeed. They are rascist. They could never let the History Books tell the story of our first successful African American President. They would rather sacrifice our own children.
If these "justices" decide to be apolitical and not follow their own ideology then the Affordable Healthcare Act will be upheld, if not we'll have another disastrous "Citizens United" style decision that will ruin more and more Americans!
G-d bless unintended consequences! The interminable Repub primary circus act has been prolonged by the massive infusion of bucks from billionaires. If the SCOTUS has been paying any attention, they may be having second thoughts about the wisdom (and the harm to the Repub Party) of Citizens United and unlimited SuperPac contributions.
We can hope they've learned their lesson and will at least temporarily stop being precedent-overturning activist judges. A little humility would be well-advised here.
The Tea Party is actually working for the Insurance Companies. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Santoram has been known for defending them. I think The Health Insurance companies have raped the Americans long enough. The lobbyist are probably at the Courthouse now sitting with Palin.
PLEASE PLEASE inform me..... IF Obamacare FORCES people to purchase healthcare, which Democrats, Republicans, and the Supreme Count all appear to agree it does [finally, some agreement]..... does that that mean that anyone without healthcare WILL NO LONGER BE TREATED in our hospitals? If no, were is the teeth in this bill? If yes, are we really ready to turn injured people away? If you are caught without insurance for your car; you license can be revoted. If you enter a hospital without an insurance card, can your be stopped from being admitted? If there is no price for admission, we have no reason to buy a ticket. How will this work?
If people without health insurance are not turned away from hospitals, where is the teeth in Obamacare? Why would anyone purchase a ticket for a free concert?
Oh please America desperately needs socialized healthcare. If Obama-care isn't found constitutional then the viruses in this country are going to continue to have the ever increasing resistance to the drugs prescribed to combat them. Its call evolution you ignorant Republican.
I understand now why republicans are so against the mandate now being discussed in the supreme court...they must think its really a gay thing...man-dating. No wonder the repubs are freaking out. :)
The government required everyone to purchase prescription medicine insurance and there was no objection such as there is with the health care mandate.
Part D is not mandatory
Rachel,
Today was about process and as you have told us process is important. Jurisdiction is important. I am sorry that you chose to minimize the process however SCOTUS could choose not to deal with this as it is not yet timely. The arguments are important to the process. You portrayal of today's proceedings as eye glazing does both you and your viewers a disservice in my opinion.
After listening to the anti-Obamacare elements mourn the loss of their "freedom" to not buy a product they do not want (health insurance), I came to a couple of conclusions. First, I am willing to bet that all or most of them already have health coverage. Second, if any of them needed a medical procedure, they would thank their stars they had that coverage. It appears to me that they are merely selfish, and they don't want their resources going to help other people gain access to health coverage. Additionally, I can't quite understand why someone would not want health insurance if it were available and they could afford it?
Just talk to a young, healthy person. They may only want catastrafic insurance at minimal cost. The problem is the ACA is a one size fits all with fairly high premiums. This law was not thought out fully. It is trying to insure everyone without any consideration to the supply of doctors.
While I believe health care is needed for all, I think everyone should stop throwing all their other issues into the discussions. It seems both sides favor insurance companies handling the money. We should ask why is that? It seems neither side addresses the large company profits raked in by exploiting people with ailments. Why is that? The truth is government enjoys dodging the real places where health care cost can be cut because we continue to argue about bipartison issues.
I am watch Senator Ron Johnson asking that people be allowed to keep a shred of freedom, that people not be forced to buy things they don't want to buy. Nobody wants to buy health insurance, that is till they're bleeding out on the emergency room floor. You can't run a society that way. I for one don't want t be forced to buy the United States Marine Corps. I'm sure they're a great bunch of men and women, but I would like to opt out of their protection and not be asked to contribute. Is Senator Johnson in support of that?