Get your T-shirts here. I’m getting one.
Two years after the passage of the Affordble Care Act, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments/defense beginning Monday, on the 2010 Health care Law the Obama administration championed. The arguments will not be televised.
*The Supreme Court rejected requests from news organizations for live, televised coverage of this month’s historic arguments on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul but agreed to release audio recordings of the proceedings on the same day.
The court will post audio files and transcripts on its website here within two hours of the end of the proceedings on each of the three days set aside for argument, March 26-28.
The C-SPAN cable network said it would play back the arguments on a broadcast channel and on radio as soon as they are available. 3 Chics is disappointed the court is not allowing cameras, but we’ll keep you all updated as much as we can.
Please feel free to read on to get some basic information on how the proceedings will flow and the parties involved in the argument.
LOL Yes, Joe it’s still a BFD
Some things to look for In the oral argument:
It is always hazardous to draw strong inferences from what happens at oral argument, particularly in a case of this nature. The justices know full well that the world will be watching, and thus will be conscious of how their questions might be perceived. (Look for the Chief to ask very tough questions of both sides.) Still, with that as a caveat, here are a few things to look for in tomorrow’s proceedings on the Court’s jurisdiction:
1. Does the Chief Justice or Justice Kennedy reveal some significant sympathy to Mr. Long’s argument that the AIA deprives the Court of jurisdiction? Most have identified (I think rightly) these two justices as the critical votes. And they both–perhaps for different reasons–may wish the Court could simply avoid this matter altogether. Thus, any indications of their views on the matter are important, perhaps even dispositive.
2. Does Justice Scalia seem intrigued by the jurisdictional question? He is known as a hawk on Article III jurisdictional matters, a stickler for the limited role of federal courts. And he has voted that the Court lacks jurisdiction even in cases where the result has confounded his apparent ideological leanings. (Recall the case involving Utah’s claim to an additional congressional seat.) Point 1 above notwithstanding, it is conceivable that Scalia, combined with the four Democratic appointees, could find the AIA argument persuasive.
3. Do the Justices’ invoke the opinion of Judge Kavanaugh in Seven-Sky? There may be no more influential lower-court judge with the Court’s present conservatives than D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh. And in a lengthy, scholarly opinion in Seven-Sky, Kavanaugh concluded (in dissent) that the AIA barred pre-enforcement challenges (at least by private individuals) to the minimum coverage provisions. If the justices are asking several questions referencing Kavanaugh’s opinion, it could signal that the AIA argument has gained substantial traction.
4. To what extent do the justices ask about the states’ Article III standing to challenge the mandate? This would only become an issue if the Court concludes that the AIA bars jurisdiction over the private parties’ challenge to the mandate. So if this is a significant topic of discussion, it could mean a critical mass of justices think the Court needs to reach and resolve it.
5. Do the justices express any concern about what happens between now and 2015? If the Court dismisses the challenge to the minimum coverage provision on jurisdictional grounds, it likely means there could be no challenge in federal court until 2015, once the IRS has assessed a deficiency for someone failing to pay the applicable tax penalty. (Congress could amend the AIA in the interim, though, moving up the date.) Such a delay would leave a number of actors (large employers, health insurers, state and local governments, etc.) in a state of significant uncertainty, having to implement the ACA’s requirements without knowing whether they will ultimately be upheld. Will the obvious costs of such uncertainty hanging over an industry comprising 18% of the U.S. economy dissuade the Court from going this route? If these practical implications are a significant object of inquiry, it points towards the Court going ahead and reaching the merits.
There are many more we could probably add to the list. But these are the five that jump out at me right now. Source.
The Law
The Supreme Court will consider four questions in reviewing the Affordable Care Act. These four short videos provide background on each question the Court will hear. Check them out here.
Donald Verrilli Jr. Solicitor Gerneral will DEFEND the Obama Administration’s health care overhaul. You can read about Mr. Verrilli HERE.
Updated with changes>
Paul Clemet is the Court-appointed amicus curia He will deliver oral arguments/briefs against the health care law. You can read about Mr. Clement here: http://tiny.cc/k1asbw
Let’s get armed with the facts, continue our support of the ACA, and see how this all plays out. Remember, you can check in with C-Span and listen here 2 hours after the arguments are finished for the day.
After Rough Day In Court, An Optimistic View For Supporters Of ‘Obamacare’
Brian Beutler-March 27, 2012, 2:23 PM
The snap reactions to today’s Supreme Court arguments about the constitutionality of the health care law’s individual mandate gave reform supporters a collective case of heartburn. The conservative justices seemed broadly hostile to the law’s requirement that everyone carry health insurance. President Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, was widely panned by experienced court watchers for stumbling at key moments. Jeffery Toobin — a seasoned vet of the high court — called it a “train wreck” for the Obama administration.
Here’s some antacid.
Over the first two days of arguments, two of the Court’s five conservative justices have expressed sympathy for key parts of the administration’s arguments. And the administration probably only needs one of their votes to fully uphold the law.
That’s the view of former acting Clinton Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who sat down with me and a handful of other reporters after watching the arguments. Dellinger tamped down on some initial criticism’s of his successor’s performance before the court. And, crucially, he highlighted an exchange that occurred on Monday — one we broke down here — in which Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to reject the cornerstone of the challenger’s argument.
“Yesterday the Chief Justice said that it doesn’t make much sense to say that the mandate is separate from the penalty or the tax,” Dellinger said. “He seemed yesterday to have accepted the government’s argument that there’s a real choice here. If you don’t want to have health insurance that you can pay the tax penalty.”
That could have broad legal implications. On Monday, in response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Verrilli noted that under the law, a person who chooses to pay the tax penalty rather than comply with the mandate will not be considered in violation of the law. So it’s a choice — not a unilateral command. If even one of the conservative justices agrees, he could vote to uphold the law on unexpected grounds.
“Once the government has said that the mandate is not an independent requirement, it merely provides a choice of paying the tax or having insurance, and given the fact that the Chief Justice yesterday recognized that, it is quite possible that you could have four votes to uphold this under the Commerce power and two votes to uphold it under the taxing power,” Dellinger said.
This piece of the challenger’s argument didn’t come under questioning on Tuesday, leaving us only one snapshot by which to gauge Roberts’ views. But even if Roberts doesn’t bite, Dellinger said he thinks Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed open to upholding the law as an appropriate exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/after-rough-day-in-court-an-optimistic-view-for-supporters-of-obamacare.php?ref=fpa
You can listen to day 2 of oral arguments here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday
Transciprit of Day 2 oral argument
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf
Jeff Toobin, eat your lunch, instead of biting your knuckles and wringing your hands.
SNAPSHOT-Day 2 of healthcare arguments at US Supreme Court
Reuters) – Here is a snapshot of the scene inside and outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the second of three days of arguments over President Barack Obama’s healthcare law.
* DAY TWO: The nine justices returned to the bench on Tuesday for the most anticipated session of their historic three days of oral arguments on the 2010 healthcare overhaul. The arguments lasted two hours and two minutes.
* LEGAL QUESTION: Whether Congress exceeded its power under the U.S. Constitution when it required most people to buy insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.
* WHO ARGUED: Donald Verrilli, U.S. solicitor general, backed the law for the Obama administration. Paul Clement of Bancroft PLLC, a former Bush administration solicitor general, argued on behalf of the 26 states challenging the law and seeking to have the individual mandate invalidated. Michael Carvin of Jones Day argued for a small business group, the National Federation of Independent Business, which opposed the insurance requirement.
* A HIGHLIGHT INSIDE: As often happens in high-profile cases before the court, it could all come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who would be the most likely to give the liberal wing a victory. “I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?” he asked near the beginning of the oral arguments.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/usa-healthcare-court-snapshot-idUSL2E8ERO0K20120327
Supreme Court to Review Individual Mandate Provision
Washington, DC
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
C-SPAN’s coverage of the Supreme Court’s Health Care Law argument continues into its second day when the Justices question the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of the law.
Our coverage continues this afternoon with a special C-SPAN program featuring today’s Supreme Court news. Watch interviews, LIVE coverage from the Court and same-day audio recording of today’s oral argument along with your calls.
Earlier on the Washington Journal, Slate Magazine and National Law Journal journalists looked at today’s argument. Also, legal scholars from Yale and Northwestern discussed the arguments for and against the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
The individual mandate portion of the law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2014, requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a fine.
The government’s ability to require everyone to buy insurance depends in part on another provision of the Act that goes into effect at the same time, which requires health insurance companies to provide affordable insurance for everyone, even people who had previously been unable to obtain insurance because they suffer from “pre-existing conditions.”
The Court will consider whether the individual mandate is in fact constitutional. This issue boils down to whether Congress has the power to enact a law requiring everyone in the United States to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
The Obama Administration argues that it does under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce . . . among the states.”
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Supreme-Court-to-Review-Individual-Mandate-Provision/10737429100/
You can listen to oral arguments today on C-Span too!
http://www.c-span.org/healthcare/
Poll: Majority of Supreme Court Insiders Expect Health Care Law Will Be Upheld
Ronald Brownstein, National Journal 1,028 ViewsMar 26, 2012
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear historic oral arguments on President Obama’s health care reform law this week, a survey of legal insiders released Monday morning found a widespread expectation that the Court would uphold the central pillars of the law
The survey asked former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued cases before the Court to assess the probability, on a scale from zero to 100 percent, that the Justices would strike down the law’s mandates on individuals to purchase health insurance or its provisions expanding eligibility for Medicaid to millions of more uninsured adults.
Overall, those surveyed felt there was only a 35 percent probability that the Court would strike down the law’s individual mandate as unconstitutional. Attorneys who had clerked for one of the Court’s four conservative Justices and those who had clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the key swing vote on the issue, forecast a somewhat higher probability that the law would be struck down than those who had clerked for the four liberal justices.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/poll-majority-supreme-court-insiders-expect-health-care-law-will-be-upheld/50334/
Health-care provision at center of Supreme Court debate was a Republican idea
By N.C. Aizenman, Published: March 26
As the Supreme Court moves Tuesday to the heart of the challenge to President Obama’s signature health-care law, there is a curious twist: The case largely rests on the constitutionality of a provision that originated deep in Republican circles.
The individual insurance mandate, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health coverage or pay a fine, was the brainchild of conservative economists and embraced by some of the nation’s most prominent Republicans for nearly two decades. Yet today many of those champions — including presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — are among the mandate’s most vocal critics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-care-provision-at-center-of-supreme-court-debate-was-a-republican-idea/2012/03/25/gIQAoCHocS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
Supreme Court Should Heed Economic Sense on Health Care
By Noah FeldmanMar 25, 2012 6:01 PM CT
When the sun hits the brilliant white marble of the Supreme Court building on a clear spring day, it is so bright you can’t look at it. Thus illuminated, the court becomes the sun: the epicenter of the Washington world.
It is exceedingly rare for the Supreme Court actually to be at the center of events in government. But starting on Monday, for a few days, it will be.
The signature accomplishment of Barack Obama’s administration is on the line. To strike down the Affordable Care Act, the court would hamsg marve to announce that mandatory insurance coverage is, quite literally, beyond the power of the government.
In economic terms, that would mean saying that universal health care in the U.S. can’t be achieved except through a single-payer system administered entirely by the government, which in political terms seems essentially impossible. If the mandatory coverage provision goes, so does the whole program.
Obama’s legal team has embraced this all-or-nothing approach, and for good reason. They have told the court that mandatory coverage is not “severable” from the rest of the law. If the court holds that the government cannot require you to be covered or pay a fine, guaranteed issue of coverage to all comers, the core of the law, will cease to operate.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-25/supreme-court-should-heed-economic-sense-on-health-care.html
Supreme Court begins review of health-care law
By Robert Barnes and N.C. Aizenman, Updated: Monday, March 26, 12:28 PM
The Supreme Court opened its historic review of the national health-care overhaul Monday with an indication that it will be able to decide the constitutional question of whether Congress exceeded its powers despite arguments that the challenge was brought too soon.
The court began the first of three days of oral arguments on the 2010 law by examining a statute that keeps courts from hearing tax challenges before they go into effect. But the justices’ questions indicated skepticism that the penalties prescribed for those who do not buy health insurance by 2014 amount to taxes under the 1867 law forbidding tax challenges.
The court on Tuesday will hear arguments about the so-called “individual mandate” that is at the heart of the health-care law.
The court had asked Washington lawyer Robert A. Long to present the argument that the obscure 19th-century law — the Anti-Injunction Act — meant that lawsuits brought by 26 states and a private business organization were premature. Long said the court’s precedents showed that the statute should keep any court from hearing the case until someone actually had to pay a penalty on his or her 2015 income tax returns for not purchasing health insurance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-begins-review-of-health-care-law/2012/03/26/gIQA5lk0bS_story.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
You can read teh 91 page transcript of today’s oral arguments here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf
AUDIO: Today’s Supreme Court argument on Obamacare http://thkpr.gs/GUOaOu
AUDIO: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/
Paul Clement’s Fake Constitution
3 False Claims in the Attorney’s Anti-Health Care Brief
By Ian Millhiser | March 23, 2012
The legal case against the Affordable Care Act has, in the words of conservative Judge
Laurence Silberman, no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court
precedent.” Nevertheless, the plaintiffs challenging this law have hired a very skilled
attorney—former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement—and Clement clearly believes
he is so skilled that he can pull a fast one on the justices of the Supreme Court. His brief
attacking the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional is riddled with misrepresentations
of precedent and inaccurate descriptions of what our Constitution says.
Here are three key examples of Clement’s attempt to replace the U.S. Constitution with
something completely different.
1. Clement’s bad textualism
2. Clement’s hyperbole about limitless government
3. Clement’s Scalia problem
Read the 4 page PDF here for the details:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/aca_clement.html
Majority of Legal Experts Predict Supreme Court Will Uphold Health Care Law
March 16, 2012
by Nicole Flatow
Eighty-five percent of “a select group of academics, journalists and lawyers who regularly follow and/or comment on the Supreme Court” believe the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act, according to a new American Bar Association poll.
The widespread belief among legal experts that the health care reform law is constitutional is nothing new. As Reuters’ Joan Biskupic writes in a story tracing the history of the health care litigation, legal challenges to the law were initially regarded among many law professors as “implausible” and “frivolous.”
She explains:
As the suits proliferated, many professors, including conservatives, declared the challenges meritless. Charles Fried, a U.S. solicitor general under Reagan and now a Harvard law professor, told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News that he was so confident the individual mandate was valid that he would eat his hat – “bought in Australia … made of kangaroo skin” – if the law was struck down.
http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/majority-of-legal-experts-predict-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law
*3 Chics highly recommend our community to veiw these videos below. The explanations are clear & simple to understand
#LikeObamacare because my little brother can live. After having a bone marrow transplant, my brother has a new lease on life. He can live!
LOL It looks like Ezra Klein is on it too. Go check it out his article for RE-INFORCEMENTS
Wonkbook: Absolutely everything you need to know about health reform’s Supreme Court debut
by Ezra Kleinat 06:49 AM ET, 03/26/2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-health-reform-supreme-court-debut/2012/03/26/gIQAb7adbS_blog.html
Hallelujah, Mr. Sheen! KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR MEDICARE, GOP!
STAND UP FOR MEDICARE-SIGN THE PETITION
http://dccc.org/pages/stand-up-for-medicare?source=2012.03.26_ms
Health Care Supporters Rally Outside Supreme Court
Good stuff! Let them know.
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?!!!! WE’RE TIRED OF FIGHTING WITH CONGRESS. LET THIS LAW STAND!
The Supreme Court will consider four questions in reviewing the Affordable Care Act.
These four short videos below provide background on each question the Court will hear. 3 Chics Politico posted them in the comments section for you.
David Plouffe on Healthcare
[wpvideo R5YoLUsg]
Mitt Romney is the “GODFATHER OF THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN.” LOL
Romney Care is FOREVER “ETCHED” in the books now.
Go Plouffe!
Take a look at just five of the ways Romney would hurt millions of Americans if he got his way.
1.
Millions of Americans could lose access to preventive services, including cancer screenings, blood pressure tests, and flu shots. [Source: HHS]
2.
Insurance companies could continue to deny coverage to as many as 129 million people with a pre-existing condition if they try to buy insurance on their own. [Source: HealthCare.gov]
3.
Young people could be kicked off their parents’ insurance when they turn 18 or graduate from college, instead of being covered until they are 26. [Source: HHS]
4.
Americans who fall into the Medicare “doughnut hole” would lose crucial discounts on prescriptions. [Source: HHS]
5.
Insurance companies could go back to spending as much as 40% of premiums on administrative overhead like CEO salaries and marketing. [Source: Healthcare.gov]
Yesterday was the second anniversary of health care reform, or Obamacare, which is under threat of repeal by each of the GOP candidates. Mitt Romney said he’d “kill it dead.” So each tip this week focuses on how this landmark reform is working to help people — from young people to seniors and everyone in between — and what would happen if the GOP got their way.
Check it out, then spread the word to anyone who has questions on the progress we’ve made:
#1 Infographic: How Obamacare will close the Medicare “doughnut hole”
Yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden spoke to folks in Miami about Medicare, and laid out a clear contrast between President Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s plans for it. While Romney plans to end Medicare as we know it and make seniors pay more, President Obama is working to strengthen Medicare and close the famed Medicare prescription drug “doughnut hole,” which forces some seniors to pay thousands of dollars for prescription medications out of pocket. It’s just one way the President is making sure that when people retire, they can do it securely — and with dignity. Take a look at the infographic we put together comparing their plans, then share it with friends and family
2 Five ways Romney would hurt Americans by repealing health reform
Of all the GOP candidates, Mitt Romney’s been leading the fight to repeal health reform. So this week, we put together the top five ways that Romney repealing Obamacare would hurt Americans. For example, did you know that if the law is overturned, up to 129 million people would continue to be at risk of being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions? It’s scary to think what would happen if this reform is rolled back. Spread the word.
#3 Why health reform matters: Judy’s story
If Obamacare is repealed, here’s another of the first things to go: access to preventive care. Many basic preventive services like mammograms, cancer screenings, and bone density tests for osteoporosis are available at no additional cost. These services can prevent sickness, and also catch it early — making treatment easier and less invasive. A perfect example of why this reform matters is Judy’s story. Thanks to a free mammogram, she detected cancer early and received treatment immediately. Today, her outlook is good — and she feels healthy. Watch this short video of her story, and pass it along:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4n_qBZf3R0&feature=player_embedded
#4 Why health reform matters: Seniors
There’s no doubt that if the GOP got their way and repealed Obamacare, seniors would be one of the groups hit hardest. Last year, millions of seniors and disabled Americans relied on Medicare for quality health care — and almost 26 million received at least one preventive service free of cost. Thanks to President Obama’s plan to close the Medicare “doughnut hole,” seniors saved an average of $600 last year on prescriptions. Share the facts with everyone who should know.
#5 Insurance companies barred from denying Americans with pre-existing conditions
One of the biggest achievements of Obamacare is that people will no longer be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. What’s considered a pre-existing condition? Everything from high blood pressure to asthma to cancer or heart disease. And they’re more common than you may think — up to half of Americans under the age of 65 have one. If Romney and the GOP have their way, they’d immediately roll this back — essentially telling folks they’re on their own. Share with people how critical this piece of health reform is to us.
Thanks, Ametia! Good Post!
My pleasure, SG2. Let’s get the facts out there!
We already know what the GOP stands for