WASHINGTON |
Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:59pm EDT
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday appeared prepared to decide the
fate of President Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare law soon, rather
than delaying for years a ruling on the mandate that Americans buy
insurance or pay a penalty.
In the first of three days of
historic arguments, the justices voiced doubt that a U.S. tax law
requiring that people pay first and litigate later should postpone a
ruling on the legal challenge to the president's signature domestic
legislative achievement.
At the
core of the healthcare law, signed by Obama in 2010, is a requirement
that people obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The
question on Monday was whether people can challenge this so-called
individual mandate before paying the penalty and seeking a refund.
The
Obama administration and the challengers - including 26 of the 50
states - agreed that the case should be decided now. One of the four
U.S. appeals courts that ruled on the law prior to the case going to the
high court held that the tax law barred the challenges until the
penalty was paid. The justices then appointed an outside private lawyer
to argue that position.
The nine
justices, five appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democratic
presidents, plan to hear up to six hours of arguments over three days.
They are expected to rule on the case by late June.
The
law was passed by Congress when both the Senate and House of
Representatives were controlled by Obama's fellow Democrats. The court's
consideration of the fate of the law presents high stakes for Obama as
he campaigns for re-election on November 6.
U.S.
conservatives revile the law, denouncing it as unwarranted government
intrusion into the lives of Americans, and the Republican candidates
battling to become their party's nominee to challenge Obama have
promised to try to repeal it.
In
Monday's arguments lasting 89 minutes, justices across the ideological
spectrum asked skeptical questions about whether the penalty was indeed a
tax. If not deemed a tax, then the justices can move forward to decide
the merits of whether the law is constitutional.
"Here,
they did not use that word tax," liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said,
referring both to lawmakers who crafted the legislation in Congress and
to their intent.
Another liberal
Democratic appointee to the high court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
also expressed skepticism. "This is not a revenue-raising measure
because, if it's successful, nobody will pay the penalty and there will
be no revenue to raise."
Conservative
Antonin Scalia was also among those justices who suggested by his
questions that allowing the case to go forward would not broadly
undercut federal tax policy.
'NO PARADE OF HORRIBLES'
"There
will be no parade of horribles," Scalia said, noting that lower court
judges would be able to determine when to make exceptions to the usual
rules governing general tax penalties and law.
Chief
Justice John Roberts, the leader of the conservative majority, observed
that the court's past cases cut in both directions and that it was
unclear that the case could not go forward.
The
law, intended to transform healthcare for millions of people in the
United States, has generated fierce political debate. Republican
opponents of the law say it will financially burden states, businesses
and individuals.
The law has been
viewed as the crowning achievement of Obama's domestic legislative
agenda, but challengers say Congress exceeded its constitutional power
to regulate commerce with the individual mandate.
They
argue that government should not force people to pay for a product they
have opted against. Critics said it could lead to a wide array of other
requirements such as eating broccoli, joining gyms, or buying
American-made cars.
The Obama
administration counters that virtually every person will need medical
care and that those who shun insurance put a disproportionate burden on
the system. It defended the law as a response to a national healthcare
crisis.
Underscoring how the issue
has divided Americans, hundreds of supporters and opponents marched
outside the white-marble Supreme Court building across from the U.S.
Capitol. People lined up 72 hours in advance to try to get one of the
few seats open to the public.
Supporters
chanted "We love Obamacare," embracing a term opponents have used to
deride the law. One protester against the law, Sally Oljar of Seattle,
said: "The day hasn't come when the government can force me to buy a
damn thing."
The courtroom, which
holds about 400 people, was packed with lawmakers from across the street
in Congress, prominent attorneys, top Obama administration officials
and those who paid others or waited themselves over the weekend to get a
seat in the public gallery.
Among
the officials watching in the courtroom were two of Obama's Cabinet
members - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is
charged with implementing much of the law, and Attorney General Eric
Holder, the head of the Justice Department which has been defending the
law in court.
Also present in the
courtroom were Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, an outspoken
critic of the law, and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has led
the challenge to the law by the states.
Outside,
Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum called a news conference
to promise that if elected, he would get Congress to pass a law
eliminating Obama's healthcare overhaul. Obama is seeking re-election on
November 6.
In the United States,
annual healthcare spending totals $2.6 trillion, about 18 percent of the
annual gross domestic product, or $8,402 for every man, woman and
child.
In the markets, the Morgan
Stanley Healthcare Payor index of health insurers was up 2.6 percent in
mid-day trading, outperforming a roughly 1 percent rise for the broader
market.
Shares of large insurers,
such as UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint, were up more than 2 percent,
while shares of hospital chains HCA Holdings and Community Health
Systems also rose more than 2 percent.
MOMENTOUS SESSIONS
The
arguments recalled past momentous sessions, such as the 2000
presidential election dispute between Republican George W. Bush and
Democrat Al Gore and the 1974 Watergate tapes case that led to President
Richard Nixon's resignation.
The
tone of the session was serious as lawyers and justices invoked heavy
phrases about jurisdiction and statutory construction. One moment of
levity arose when attorney Robert Long noted the healthcare law, which
runs to 2,700 pages, was not "a perfect model of clarity," drawing
laughter in the courtroom.
Long,
appointed by the justices to argue that the case should be delayed, said
that federal law "imposes a pay first, litigate later rule that is
central to federal tax assessment and collection."
Solicitor
General Donald Verrilli, the administration's top courtroom lawyer,
urged the justices to decide the merits of the dispute. "This case
presents issues of great moment," he said.
Representing
the challengers, lawyer Gregory Katsas, argued the case can be decided.
"The purpose of this lawsuit is to challenge a federal requirement to
buy health insurance. That requirement itself is not a tax."
Eight
of the nine justices took part in the vigorous questioning. Only
Justice Clarence Thomas, who has not asked a question from the bench for
more than six years, said nothing.
On its website the Supreme Court posted the audio of the oral argument as well as a transcript, here
No comments:
Post a Comment