The first day (March 26th) focused on the justices deciding whether the court could even consider the bill because the Tax Anti-Injunction Act. This is a law that requires people to pay taxes before challenging them so that these people would not refuse to pay until a ruling was made. This leads to the question of whether this case must wait until the first penalty payments are due in April 15, 2015 to have their case considered. The state argues that this law applies on an individual basis rather than to the state itself and so is not applicable. There is also question of whether this is truly a “tax”. If the Supreme Court believes it to be a tax then the hearing cannot occur until 2015. 1st : Robert A. Long argues that the suit is barred 2nd : Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. says the challenges may proceed 3rd : Gregory G. Katsas agrees with the government
-The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a bill signed in by Obama and approved 219/212, with 34 democrats and all republicans voting against the bill. It is controversial because it forces people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty fee. It involves an increased spending on healthcare and a decrease in spending on Medicaid. A majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of PPACA. As of January 2012, two of four federal appellate courts have upheld it; a third declared the individual mandate unconstitutional, while a fourth ruled the federal Anti-Injunction Act prevents the issue from being decided until taxpayers begin paying penalties in 2015. The Supreme Court heard six hours of oral argument on March 26–28, 2012, and is expected to issue its decision by the end of June. -Day 1- discussed whether the act could even be discussed until April 15th, when people will actually be required to pay fees. This is due to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, which states that people must actually have to pay taxes to be able to contest them. The state argues that this law applies on an individual basis rather than to the state itself and so is not able to be considered by the Supreme Court. There is also question of whether the penalty collected by the IRS actually falls under the label of a tax. If this is the case, and the Supreme Court considers this a tax, the hearing is not able to occur until the 15th. -They determined that the Anti-injunction act doesn’t apply. It isn’t a bar so that they can proceed to day 2 and 3. Day 2- asks whether it is constitutional to require all individuals to have health insurance, and how it can be considered NOT a tax under the anti-injunction act and IS a tax under the Supreme Court. Possible that the court will be split 4:1. Upholding the law would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state. Government shouldn’t attempt to define limits in the healthcare market, and there is no limit to the power of the government if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare. If the court strikes down the Medicaid or mandate positions, will all of it be struck down, or only some of it. It is likely that they will have to strike down the whole law. Day 3- Has to strike entire law if they strike any of it. Law will most likely get struck down.
-My questions: How is making people get health insurance different than the state’s requirement that we have car insurance? Why is it so controversial to use extra money to make sure everyone has equal opportunity to get healthcare, but it is not as controversial to use money to build walls around our border and occupy other countries?
Day one is thought to be the most important date of the three days. The justices have allotted 90 minutes for arguments. On day one the court will consider whether the fact that a taxation provision in the Affordable Care Act doesn't go into effect until 2014 means the current legal challenge is premature. That meaning, that if it truely is a tax there will be no effect until 2014. Also, argument on the whether the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 (AIA) allows a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. If there is a tax the lawsuit cannot be heared until 2015. Attorney Gregory Katsas, who is representing those opposing the law, argued that the plaintiffs were challenging the individual mandate authorized by the Affordable Care Act rather than the penalty for non-compliance. Chief Justice John Roberts heard the argument but asserted that the mandate and penalty are ultimately bound together.
The first day of the the arguments were trying to decide if it is constitutional to consider this bill because of the Anti-Injunction Act.The three people who argued on the first day all had different opinions on the this issue of the bill. The first person, Robert Long argued and made it clear that this suit should be barred because of the Anti-Injunction Law. The second person, Donald Verrilli Jr, argued that this Anti-Injunction Act does not apply and so the bill should proceed. Then the third person, Gregory Katsas argued that this bill should be waived by the government thus agreeing with the governments stance on this bill
The first day (March 26th) focused on the justices deciding whether the court could even consider the bill because the Tax Anti-Injunction Act. This is a law that requires people to pay taxes before challenging them so that these people would not refuse to pay until a ruling was made. This leads to the question of whether this case must wait until the first penalty payments are due in April 15, 2015 to have their case considered. The state argues that this law applies on an individual basis rather than to the state itself and so is not applicable. There is also question of whether this is truly a “tax”. If the Supreme Court believes it to be a tax then the hearing cannot occur until 2015.
ReplyDelete1st : Robert A. Long argues that the suit is barred
2nd : Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. says the challenges may proceed
3rd : Gregory G. Katsas agrees with the government
-The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a bill signed in by Obama and approved 219/212, with 34 democrats and all republicans voting against the bill. It is controversial because it forces people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty fee. It involves an increased spending on healthcare and a decrease in spending on Medicaid. A majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of PPACA. As of January 2012, two of four federal appellate courts have upheld it; a third declared the individual mandate unconstitutional, while a fourth ruled the federal Anti-Injunction Act prevents the issue from being decided until taxpayers begin paying penalties in 2015. The Supreme Court heard six hours of oral argument on March 26–28, 2012, and is expected to issue its decision by the end of June.
ReplyDelete-Day 1- discussed whether the act could even be discussed until April 15th, when people will actually be required to pay fees. This is due to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, which states that people must actually have to pay taxes to be able to contest them. The state argues that this law applies on an individual basis rather than to the state itself and so is not able to be considered by the Supreme Court. There is also question of whether the penalty collected by the IRS actually falls under the label of a tax. If this is the case, and the Supreme Court considers this a tax, the hearing is not able to occur until the 15th.
-They determined that the Anti-injunction act doesn’t apply. It isn’t a bar so that they can proceed to day 2 and 3.
Day 2- asks whether it is constitutional to require all individuals to have health insurance, and how it can be considered NOT a tax under the anti-injunction act and IS a tax under the Supreme Court. Possible that the court will be split 4:1. Upholding the law would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state. Government shouldn’t attempt to define limits in the healthcare market, and there is no limit to the power of the government if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare. If the court strikes down the Medicaid or mandate positions, will all of it be struck down, or only some of it. It is likely that they will have to strike down the whole law.
Day 3- Has to strike entire law if they strike any of it. Law will most likely get struck down.
-My questions: How is making people get health insurance different than the state’s requirement that we have car insurance? Why is it so controversial to use extra money to make sure everyone has equal opportunity to get healthcare, but it is not as controversial to use money to build walls around our border and occupy other countries?
Day one is thought to be the most important date of the three days. The justices have allotted 90 minutes for arguments.
ReplyDeleteOn day one the court will consider whether the fact that a taxation provision in the Affordable Care Act doesn't go into effect until 2014 means the current legal challenge is premature. That meaning, that if it truely is a tax there will be no effect until 2014. Also, argument on the whether the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 (AIA) allows a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. If there is a tax the lawsuit cannot be heared until 2015. Attorney Gregory Katsas, who is representing those opposing the law, argued that the plaintiffs were challenging the individual mandate authorized by the Affordable Care Act rather than the penalty for non-compliance. Chief Justice John Roberts heard the argument but asserted that the mandate and penalty are ultimately bound together.
The first day of the the arguments were trying to decide if it is constitutional to consider this bill because of the Anti-Injunction Act.The three people who argued on the first day all had different opinions on the this issue of the bill. The first person, Robert Long argued and made it clear that this suit should be barred because of the Anti-Injunction Law. The second person, Donald Verrilli Jr, argued that this Anti-Injunction Act does not apply and so the bill should proceed. Then the third person, Gregory Katsas argued that this bill should be waived by the government thus agreeing with the governments stance on this bill
ReplyDelete