https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...-mandate/ar-BB10Ddae

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will take up a legal challenge to Obamacare, agreeing to hear the case in its new term that begins in October. That means the program will continue for at least another year.

It also means the justices won't be handing down a ruling on the contentious issue of health care this June, just as the presidential campaign heats up. That may be good news for Republicans, who would prefer to avoid the issue in an election year.

A federal appeals court ruled in December that the individual mandate in Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to the trial judge for another look at whether the entire law is invalid or some parts can survive.

The U.S. House of Representatives, controlled by Democrats, and a group of blue states urged the Supreme Court in January to take the case and issue a decision promptly, in its current term, instead of leaving the fate of the law in limbo.

"That uncertainty threatens adverse consequences for our nation's health care system, including for patients, doctors, insurers, and state and local governments," they told the court.

But the justices rejected the invitation for expedited scheduling, agreeing instead to follow the normal rules.

Since the law was passed, opponents have attacked a central feature known as the individual mandate., which requires all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty on their income tax. The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in 2012, ruling that it was a legitimate exercise of Congress's taxing authority.

But in 2017, the Republican-led Congress set the tax penalty at zero. That led Texas and a group of red states to rule that the revised law is unconstitutional. A federal judge in Texas agreed, ruling that because the tax was eliminated, the law could not no longer be saved as a use of the taxing power. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld that ruling by a 2-1 vote in mid-December.

But the appeals court decision ordered the trial judge to reconsider his ruling that the entire law must fall without the glue of the individual mandate holding it together. The Trump administration initially said parts the law could be saved without the individual mandate, but then changed its position to say the rest of the statute could not stand.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, it will not go back to the trial judge for that analysis. The justices will hear the case in the fall, with a decision by June of 2021.

why are they waiting?

quote:

It also means the justices won't be handing down a ruling on the contentious issue of health care this June, just as the presidential campaign heats up. That may be good news for Republicans, who would prefer to avoid the issue in an election year.

Uh, yeah - more like waiting to see the outcome of the next election before tackling something controversial. If, by some horrible misfortune, a Dem takes the White House, they can pretty much count on the challenge to OCare being withdrawn. If Trump wins, the Court has four years to make a decision and hopefully live it down before court cases go from politicized to hyperpoliticized again. OTOH, a Trump win might dishearten the libs on the court to the point that it's easier to give OCare a cleaner and more conclusive death.

Its already survived SCOTUS review. I don't see why it wouldn't again. Not optimistic.

quote:

A federal appeals court ruled in December that the individual mandate in Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to the trial judge for another look at whether the entire law is invalid or some parts can survive.

This tells you all you need to know about these worthless judges.
Attorney - "Your honor, the foundation of the home has completely disintegrated and can no longer support the home." Judge - "Well, then I need you to go back and determine if the rest of the home is still habitable/viable." This is elitist BS on steroids and I'm sick of it. The whole law is an abortion from start to finish and has been from the very beginning. Strike this POS down in its entirety and let's move on.

quote:

The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in 2012, ruling that it was a legitimate exercise of Congress's taxing authority.

"Taxing" authority. Something that was never mentioned in the original law or argued by Barry the Wonder Putz's attorneys. Thank you John Roberts for your linguistic masturbation turning the word "Fee" into "Tax" and preserving an unconstitutional POS because he was to cowardly to do the job he was confirmed and is paid to do.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
Its already survived SCOTUS review. I don't see why it wouldn't again. Not optimistic.

Two reasons to question its survival: First, John Roberts spun like crazy to say that the individual mandate fell under the legislature’s taxing authority, thus making it constitutional. The law has been changed, setting the so called “tax” to zero. If there is no tax, how can one say the law is a legitimate use of the legislature’s taxing authority? Second, PDJT has been working to repair SCOTUS. With a little luck, Ruthie may no longer be on the SCOTUS bench by the time it is heard. If PDJT has replaced her, there is a good chance that we’ll have an appropriate majority to relegate OBlundercare to the trash heap of history where it belongs, no matter how many pictures the Dims have of John Roberts in flagrante delicto with farm animals.

“No matter whether the Constitution follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns".

The phrase has often been quoted, sometimes by people who have never heard of Mr. Dooley. Martin J. Dooley is a fictional Irish immigrant bartender created by American journalist Finley Peter Dunne.

They are going to stay out of it until after the people decide at the Election, and then they’ll rule on the case to correspond to the election results.

I think they're waiting to see if Trump gets back in. Also, if they get rid of Obamacare, they need something or some sort of plan ready to go to fill it's place, even if it is only temporary.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
I think they're waiting to see if Trump gets back in. Also, if they get rid of Obamacare, they need something or some sort of plan ready to go to fill it's place, even if it is only temporary.

How about the free market? Eh? Why don't we try that?

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
I think they're waiting to see if Trump gets back in. Also, if they get rid of Obamacare, they need something or some sort of plan ready to go to fill it's place, even if it is only temporary.

I don't see it quite that way. My view is that SCOTUS is responsible to determine the legality of a situation/law. Not come up with some alternative!

Maybe that is one of the problems we have. To many bureaucratic swamps and swamp critters running things.

And another problem, they cannot seem to grasp the concept that they are SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY PUT IN TIME, LIKE THE REST OF US, AT THEIR DAMNED JOBS!

They have legions of clerks to do all the "research", apparently write the decisions for them to sign off. Why don't we just do away with the supremes and replace them with second year law students? End up at the same place, but a helluva lot cheaper.

They actually think it OK to wait until after the coming NOVEMBER election?

Maybe somebody should inform them that this is the first week of MARCH!!!