When HCR is challenged could we see a 9-0 or 8-1 decision by the SCOTUS for/against the law

[madville]

I was thinking about these two scenarios.

Say the conservative leaning justices vote for the corporations and the liberal leaning justices vote with the Democrats, we have a 9-0 decision upholding the new law.

Say the conservative leaning justices vote against the Democrats and the liberal leaning justices vote against the corporations, we have a 9-0 decision striking the law down.

[ixion]

1. LOL... indeed. A paradox!

well done. :applause:

[Unvanguard]

2. If it is a close decision, the liberals will vote to uphold it and the conservatives to overturn it.

If it is not, it will be overwhelmingly in favor of upholding it.

[undeterred]

3. Other than the mandate, I don't see what there is to contest.

[madville]

4. Without the mandate the plan doesn't work

The insurance companies would then sue because there is no mandate. They can't be expected to take everyone with pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps without a big enough base of healthy people mandated to fund it. They would shortly be out of business (but I think this is really the ultimate goal anyway so single payer/medicare for all can be passed).

[terrell9584]

5. Actually constitutionally

You can pass a law forcing them to cover everybody through interstate commerce but its questionable whether you can force people to buy their product.


It seems weird but thats the way it is. Right now, I would imagine the court would strike the mandate but uphold the part about pre-existing conditions.

[madville]

6. Premiums would have to increase greatly if the mandate is struck down

but everything else remains.

[terrell9584]

12. True

But the constitution's language could care less about that, and this is true for most legal documents.


Almost never has a ruling ever come down based solely on public policy effects or an interpretation changed because of that. Even Roe, which referenced science, ultimately used constitutional basis as its rationale.


That you have to have the individual mandate or else premiums go up simply doesn't pass any kind of constitutional test. And thats what these cases are argued on. Laws, not policy. That's why courts are courts.

[undeterred]

10. I'm wondering how they are staying in business now.

I am declining insurance coverage because it costs $500 a month and I can't afford it. I know lots of people who are doing the same.

[Q3JR4]

7. I've thought about this too.

I always come up with two cases. Either the conservatives on the court hate it and strike it down or otherwise modify it, or they go with their pro-business bent and side with the government.

It's kind of a weird situation. The current court really likes business interests--hence the voting with upholding a universal mandate--but they're not so keen on protecting the citizens from the excesses of their government.

I don't really know how to call it. :shrug:

Q3JR4.

[DCBob]

8. or the exact opposite...

however, more likely 5-4 with Stevens being the deciding vote.

[kenny blankenship]

9. interesting. but I would bet on a Supreme Court seal of approval

First of all, let me say I share your admiration for the impartial wisdom of our illustrious Court. But, I doubt the case will be that exciting. The 5 Republican aligned Justices know it is their job to look out for the interests of the power behind the Republican Party, which is MONEY, and not the party itself. And money has already demonstrated how it feels about this landmark legislation - through the stock market.

I think we'll see neither the Conservative 5 overrule the pleasure of the almighty Market, nor the "sensible moderate" 4 grow the spine to overrule Congress on the mandate question.

[ThomWV]

11. It will never make it to the Court