US Supreme Court will hear Obama Health Care Case this Term!!!

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, setting up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement.

The justices on Monday revealed they would take the case. That means arguments could come in March, allowing plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day. The health care case could be the high court's most significant and political undertaking since the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore nearly 11 years ago. That ruling effectively sealed George W. Bush's 2000 presidential election victory.

Source: sg.news.yahoo.com...

Well now. Isn't this a nice confirmational surprise.

IMO Obama Care will go down in flames-along political lines.

This is an ATS Poll question topin in my opinion.

reply to post by anon72


The fact that the act is unconstitutional is the first screaming issue.
This should be a very easy review for the SCOTUS.
Now, the other fact that when the SCOTUS does find it as such, that will bring down Obama's high hopes of the Socialist Utopia he fawns for.

reply to post by macman


The problem I have is how the S.C. has recently ruled against the best interest of the common man in it's rulings.

So, at best, we have a .... say..... 60-40 chance of seeing it overturned. Although it should be 99.9 to 1%...

This thing has been and will be one of the biggest domestic job killers ever.

On that basis alone, waiting to resolve it isn't an option.

If it goes in favor of Obamacare... You'll see a landslide of companies, corporations and manufacturers downsizing, making extensive cuts, layoffs and outright closing up businesses in the USA.

As if enough haven't already.

This is probably the biggest decision the Supreme Court will make since Roe v. wade in my opinion. This ruling goes far beyond the scope of healthcare and instead will determine once and for all:

Does the US Government have the right to force citizens to purchase a product?

The ramifications are huge. Should the Supreme Court rule that the government can enforce the personal mandate clause, our lives will forever be changed.

Change the subject to energy for example. What is the biggest threat to climate change and foreign policy according to the government? The importing of oil and dependence on fossil fuel. What's the problem with "clean energy"? It's too costly.

Now, if the Supreme Court rules that the government can force all citizens to purchase health insurance ( and impose penalties if you don't), than this concept can be easily be spread from health insurance to clean energy.

The biggest problem with all of this though is that the government can then make whatever requirements it feels like to enforce compliance. Whatever the government wants to make as a requirement to obtaining said health insurance is limitless. Think: all medical records housed online, finger print identification to thwart health insurance identity theft, vaccines up to date or penalty assigned, submission of medical insurance proof, vaccines, flu shots to be submitted when filing income tax....etc. There will be no limit to what the government can require in order to have health insurance.

While I agree our healthcare system needs an overhaul, the government's right to enforce the purchase of a product, any product, is a rather scary prospect.

The problem with OBC is that it is not about making sure all of america can have health coverage, it is about padding the pockets of hospitals and doctors clinics and in padding the pockets of the private sector health insurance companies. Obama doesn't give a rats ass about the people this is all just a smoke screen to shove us deeper into slavery for the corporate fatcats that OWS hates so much.

If Obama really cared about the people he would force these damned criminals to reduce the costs of their health insurance policies. I get health insurance from my job at 130 bucks a month, to add just my wife alone is an extra 550 bucks and that price is too damned steep. We got people in america living in boxes that cant even afford to live in a shoddy effiiciency apartment for poor people, so how are they supposed to afford 130 bucks or 700 if they can't even afford the lowliest type of apartment? Ontop of that they deny health coverage for pre-existing conditions so not only am i paying 130 bucks a month for myself i am paying 130 bucks a month that doesnt even cover my pre-existing conditions that i do have so i am getting reamed from every angle, upside down, inside out, sideways, front ways and from the rear all while having the threat of being jailed for not having health coverage.

No Obama isn't trying to shove us into socialism, he is trying to shove us further into the Aristocracy we already have and make us all peasants working for feudal lords where we have no rights at all. Were heading back to the dark ages is where were heading and burning books is the next step because we already have the second worst education programs in the world. We're practically burning books already for all the good they are not doing our kids. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and soon even the middle class will not exist because all our jobs have gone overseas thanks to another democrat named Bill Clinton and his NAFTA agreement. Behold the wonders of the Illuminati, every damned politician in washington is suckling from the teet of satan.

I'm glad it is going to the SC...and I am optimistic that it will be upheld.

At the very worst, they will say the mandate is struck down...but not the entire bill.

Either way....the Healthcare reform bill is here to stay.

As most all legislation has had a negative impact on the majority of American citizens,

is there anything at all in the healthcare law that has a positive impact on the majority of citizens.

(that's assuming anyone had read the damn thing)

I guess the SCOTUS is going to be forced into reading it !

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Hmm, no kiddin'?

I think the absolute worst would be for the entire bill to be struck down and that it be complete discarded. One way or another. It appears, by the W.H. reaction "go-get a ruling in June 2012 if possible statement that they plan on having that ruling (if in their favor) as a running point (of course).

Me, and others, are hoping for the worst "Start from Skratch" approach. No saying nothing needs to be done... just not the Obama crap. Lets get some real medical experts involved in the process and not the insurance types and lobbiest from whatever interest-out of it.

If should be done for the PEOPLE and not for Politics.

Hmmm, guess my last post put it to rest?

I have to say that after thinking about this story...

Obama can thank Justice Roberts for this one.

"the problem with this is all pay for it " "the problem with this is all the rich get a free ride" "the problem with this , it forces the illegals to pay for something"
The problem with this, it is Gov run, and that should say it all, but it will not for you have the 3 wanting this, The rich for one, the Gov , is two, the medical establishment is the third.
Forcing someone to buy a Gov backed plan for good or bad should not be, you should have the right to op out, I for one do not trust doc,s nor see one on the whim, workers comp is good enough, need extra then you should have the right to choose not forced.

Fortunately this is just for the mandate -- go single payer! The lower courts are running in favor of the mandate -- the rest of the world have mandates. The supreme court may rule that it is a tax and it is against the law to sue based on a tax until after the tax is collected - making the suits about the mandate moot.

This will pass the test.

26 states are opposed to Obamacare in its current form and Ohio recently passed legislation opposing it as well.

This law was not well written and was rushed the legislative process. Time to dissect it and legislate according to a prioritization of our nations largest health care problems. Small manageable steps. Simple forecasts that allow businesses to budget and plan etc.

The current panacea approach to healthcare overhaul was doomed from the day Pelosi drooled on the final copy.

Back to baby steps.

All I can say is.....


Its about freaking time! And do it before the prez gets a chance to appoint another judge!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm glad it is going to the SC...and I am optimistic that it will be upheld.

At the very worst, they will say the mandate is struck down...but not the entire bill.

Either way....the Healthcare reform bill is here to stay.

Ok....but the entire bill is funded by the personal mandate requirement....so without funding, the rest of it goes down the toilet, or as a tax to the American people. That will go over big with voters.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Agreed.. I was all for health care coverage for all. Too socialist for some of you? Deal with it. Don't care.
But this is not that. This law was a joke and has set us much further back.

With Justice Kagan having apparently "voiced" an opinion while she was Solicitor General,

we should wonder if she (and/or her friends) has already found a "legal" way to support anything that may be unconstitutional ?

Has there ever been any SCOTUS cases where a Justice has recused ?

Perhaps this case will be one.

(CNSNews.com) - On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed: ‘I Hear They Have the Votes, Larry!! Simply Amazing.’

Sounds like she was cheering on the legislation (as she probably should have).

Had she expressed any opposition, she would have been "left" out of any future "promotions"

I wonder if she read the bill at the time ?

I wonder if she has read the bill yet ?

I wonder if she will read the bill if and when she has to produce an opinion in the SCOTUS ?

We need some details on her direct involvments during the debates prior to passage.

She was dean of Harvard Law School during the military recruiting controversy.

Hmmmmm ....

I'll hazard a guess and say she will NOT recuse herself. The court still leans slightly right of center, and the left needs the vote. Like I said earlier.....lets get this done before the prez is able to appoint another socialist to the court!