TexasCHLforum.com

I have not had the time today to catch-up on today's oral arguments.

Now we wait until late May or early June for the high court's ruling.

Today's session has wrapped up. It is reported that swing vote Kennedy asked why his decision not to purchase something subjected him to regulation. When I can find the actual quote I'll post it.

If his question is a signal, it may be good news for those wanting to overturn the mandate.

Today's arguments are underway.

One of the important questions is whether or not the case is even valid because of the Anti-Injunction Act. If the penalty is a tax or a fine? If found to be a tax, then the rest of the case could be kicked back until someone actually pays the tax.

"General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," Alito asked. "Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. 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? "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 ... z1qKFDYrQj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oral arguments are now underway. The audio recordings should be available at ~12:00PM from the main SCOTUS webpage.

There are two questions:

1. Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to
enact the minimum coverage provision.
Petitioners also suggest that the Court direct the parties to address the
following question:
2. Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum
coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by
the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421(a).
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-11021, 11-11067

The first question is the real crux of the issue. However, depending on how the second question is ruled upon the first may become mute. Based on the unanimous decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency I am hopeful that the Court will further squash provisions of the Anti-Injunction Act.

srothstein wrote:Relevant to this law is the phrase regulate interstate commerce. Just exactly what is legitimate regulation is not spelled out, and neither is exactly what is interstate commerce. This vagueness is why I am not sure the law will be ruled unconstitutional and why I am not sure the court would be wrong in saying so.
--snip--

Without a doubt this has been a question that the Court has struggled with many times. According to some legal talking heads, the question should be what was intended when written. Some have claimed that in the 18th Century the phrase regulate interstate commerce was to mean keeping it regular--that is prevent barriers from being put in place. This is a much different view than today's modern interpretation. The floodgates to Congress' vast expansion of powers comes from Wickard v. Filburn. Based on the this and the other cases I cited in my OP it is unclear to me what path the Court will follow. This case is as important, if not more, than Wickard v. Filburn. A ruling allowing the individual mandate to remain in place will give Congress virtually unlimited power to force its' will on the American people. To me this is the real question: How much power does Congress have?

74novaman wrote:There was a promising decision released recently slapping down the EPA for infringing on property rights....

So its possible they might actually check the Constitution for how to steer on this one...a few of them at least.

Let's hope the EPA ruling demonstrates that the Court believes that Americans can still question their government. I cannot believe it was an unanimous decision.

As most of us know, SCOTUS will begin oral arguments in less than five days about the Constitutionality of the Affordable Healthcare Law (Obamacare). From my non-legal understanding the real question is, "Can Congress mandate Americans must buy something just because they are born?" The current administration says the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate 1/6th of the American economy. Arguments against, claim that Congress can not force someone to buy something they do not want or need.

Since Wickard v. Filburn Congress has perverted the Commerce Clause and believes they can regulate almost anything. The only successful challenge I recall was United States v. Lopez. However, I do not think Lopez can be used as a comparison. Most recently, in In Gonzales v. Raich, SCOTUS seemed to use the same rational as Filburn.

How the Court will view this case is the real unknown. However, I think it is safe to Assume that Kagan will find in favor of the law and Thomas will vote to strike down the individual mandate. Kagan was the Solicitor General that was in favor of the current mandate and expressed her pleasure (and I believe based on Raich, Thomas is all for limiting Congress' power. Unfortunately, I think the 'conservatives'--based on Raich--will be the Justices that will need to be convinced to strike down this law.

Does health insurance need to be overhauled? IMO, yes. However, that does not mean that I think Congress should or can force me to purchase something.

What do you think will happen?