SCOTUS Rejects Another Obamacare Challenge - Constitution Dies

[angelatc]

I am headed out the door at the moment, but

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/12/us-usa-court-obamacare-idUSKBN0KL1IW20150112

The court rejected an appeal filed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA. The groups had challenged various aspects of the law known as Obamacare including the so-called individual mandate that requires people to obtain health insurance or pay a tax.

I do not know why they rejected it.

But I am pretty certain (again, I'm on my way out and don't have time to check) that this is the suit that challenges the law based on the fact that it did not originate in the House. What a horrible day.

 

[Lucille]

There's a shocker.

Don't repeal/litigate, nullify/interpose!
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2010/03/dont-repeallitigate-nullifyinterpose.html

In litigation, the parties accept that the courts have jurisdiction over this or that issue, and walk away with whatever the courts give them. The Supreme Court of the United States, (including its "conservative" members in cases like Raich v. Gonzales) has already ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause can mean pretty much anything Congress wants it to mean. Litigating ObamaCare is a dead-end road.

In nullification, the state governments say "we've determined -- for ourselves, we don't need any of you black-robed ninnies to do it for us -- that this piece of legislation is unconstitutional on its face, and we're not going to stand for it, at least within our own borders. Injunction? You can shove your injunction up your ass. If you attempt to come here to enforce it, our National Guard will do the shoving for you. Complimentary. No charge."

It's time for a good old-fashioned constitutional crisis. Look where avoiding such crises has gotten us.

 

[Lucille]

I've read several articles and no one has reported why they rejected it. I assume it's the usual, "FYTW."

 

[Acala]

The Supreme Court does not usually say why it refuses to hear a case. It generally has complete discretion to hear a case or not.

 

[angelatc]

The Supreme Court does not usually say why it refuses to hear a case. It generally has complete discretion to hear a case or not.

Here's what SCOTUS Blog reported:

A new attempt to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that nearly all Americans must obtain health insurance, on the theory that this involved an unconstitutional seizure of property from those who do not want insurance, was denied without comment. The case of Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Burwell had a number of procedural problems, and there appeared to be little chance that the Court would grant review.

So maybe I got the cases mixed up and this isn't the right one. Fingers crossed...

 

[DaninPA]

What if we all just ignored the government?

I know, we'd be in jail, or tazered into submission, or shot, but one can dream, no?

 

[jmdrake]

Let's see. So the GOP pushed through cromnibus, our local republican governor is trying to expand Obamacare, our local republican governor and both republican senators support an Internet sales tax, the GOP is pushing for an increase in the gasoline tax, and now the "conservatives" on the high court have sided with Obamacare again? Oh, and the last GOP presidential nominee created the state level model for Obamacare and the one before that supported the bailout. So......why are republicans better than democrats again?

 

[RJB]

Of course the court will be for forcing people to buy from the corporations who sponsor them.

 

[torchbearer]

Constitution and Voluntary Union died in 1860.

 

[jmdrake]

Here's what SCOTUS Blog reported:



So maybe I got the cases mixed up and this isn't the right one. Fingers crossed...

Okay. I just checked. It's a different case. The case challenging the subsidies is still pending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...9429f0-6353-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear the most serious challenge to the Affordable Care Act since the justices found it constitutional more than two years ago: a lawsuit targeting the federal subsidies that help millions of Americans buy health insurance.

More than 4 million people receive the subsidies, which the Obama administration contends are essential to the act by making insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income families.

But challengers say the administration is violating the plain language of the law. They are represented by the same conservative legal strategists who fell one vote short of convincing the court that the law was unconstitutional the last time around.

The question in this challenge is whether the subsidies should be available to all Americans who qualify or only to those who purchase insurance through exchanges “established by the state.”

About a third of the states have created exchanges, and the challengers say the subsidies should be available only in those places. As the law authorizes, federal authorities have stepped in to establish exchanges where the states have refused.

The decision to hear the case, which will be decided by the end of the court’s term in June, comes as the act’s second enrollment period begins Nov. 15. Separately, the Republican takeover of the Senate in the midterm elections probably means more attacks by the GOP opponents of President Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

 

[Feelgood]

Perhaps a new US Constitution amendment to have term limits for SCOTUS? Maybe a lifetime appointment is not the way to go? Or maybe every 6 years they need to be re-confirmed?