Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[Frodo]

Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, how do you think it will rule on the mandate?  Will it uphold or strike it down?  

[Frodo]

Hearings on the individual mandate are set to begin early next week.  Just a heads-up.  

And here's the schedule:

DATE OF HEARING
March 26

TIME ALLOTTED
90 minutes

40 min.
Robert A. Long, friend of the court, appointed to argue that the suit is barred.
30 min.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. says the challenges may go forward.
20 min.
Gregory G. Katsas, representing the National Federal of Independent Business and other private parties, agrees with the government on this point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE OF HEARING
March 27

TIME ALLOTTED
2 hours

60 min.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. defends the law.
30 min.
Paul D. Clement, representing 26 states, challenges the law.
30 min.
Michael A. Carvin, representing the private parties, challenges the law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE OF HEARING
March 28

TIME ALLOTTED
90 minutes

30 min.
Paul D. Clement, representing 26 states, argues that the entire law must fall.
30 min.
Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler argues that most of the law should survive, even if the mandate is struck down.
30 min.
H. Bartow Farr III, friend of the court, appointed to defend the ruling that struck down only the mandate.

TIME ALLOTTED
1 hour

30 min.
Paul D. Clement, representing 26 states, challenges the law.
30 min.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. defends the law.

[Frodo]

Let's suppose the Supreme Court not only rules against the individual mandate but also strikes down the rest of the provisions of the health care law that goes along with it -how will such a ruling impact President Obama's re-election campaign?

[Frodo]

What precedent is there to repeal the entire law?

What precedent was there in the Citizens United vs. FEC decision?  Why should the lack of precedent stop this court?  It didn't stop them before.   

[Frodo]

Looks as if the justices are not going to punt on this issue:

Justices moving to heart of health care overhaul

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON —
As demonstrations swirled outside, Supreme Court justices signaled on Monday they are ready to confront without delay the keep-or-kill questions at the heart of challenges to President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul. Virtually every American will be affected by the outcome, due this summer in the heat of the election campaign.

On the first of three days of arguments - the longest in decades - none of the justices appeared to embrace the contention that it was too soon for a decision.

Outside the packed courtroom, marching and singing demonstrators on both sides - including doctors in white coats, a Republican presidential candidate and even a brass quartet - voiced their eagerness for the court to either uphold or throw out the largest expansion in the nation's social safety net since Medicare was enacted in 1965.

Tuesday's arguments will focus on the heart of the case, the provision that aims to extend medical insurance to 30 million more Americans by requiring everyone to carry insurance or pay a penalty.

A decision is expected by late June as Obama fights for re-election. All of his Republican challengers oppose the law and promise its repeal if the high court hasn't struck it down in the meantime.
-----------------------------------

And since I can't seem to get the audio to work, here is the transcript instead.  

[Frodo]

C-SPAN has audio here with pictures of the people who are talking.

Now why didn't I think of that?  I was looking at Oyez and they didn't have the audio yet of the hearings. 

[Frodo]

It increasingly looks as if the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate -whether that also means the rest of the law will sink with it will be determined tomorrow.

And here's the audio of today's hearings.  

[Frodo]

Looks as if the justices will throw out other pieces of the law if they strike down the mandate:

Health care arguments: Can any portion survive?

By MARK SHERMAN and PETE YOST
Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it could throw out other key parts of President Barack Obama's health care law if it first finds the individual insurance requirement unconstitutional.

On the third and last day of arguments, the justices appeared to accept the administration's argument that at least two important insurance changes are so closely tied to the insurance requirement that they could not survive without it.

Less clear was whether the court would conclude the entire law, with its hundreds of unrelated provisions, would have to be cast aside.

The justices also spent part of the day considering a challenge by 26 states to the expansion of the Medicaid program for low-income Americans, an important feature in the effort extending health insurance to an additional 30 million people.

The court's liberal justices made clear they will vote to uphold the Medicaid expansion, which would take in 15 million people with the federal government paying almost all the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------

Here's the audio on the proceedings determining whether if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the rest of the law should also be struck down; as well as the audio on whether Medicaid expansion is an unconstitutional intrusion on the states.

[Frodo]

The long-anticipated ruling is expected Thursday -so mark that date on your calendars.