- Ukraine protesters topple, decapitate Lenin statue in Kiev
- Kim Jong-un’s uncle removed from North Korean state documentary
- Thailand crisis deepens as opposition quits Parliament
- Campbell Soup apologizes for SpaghettiOs’ Pearl Harbor tweet
- Former Reagan aide James Baker: President regretted apartheid veto
- Some donations to gay waitress who allegedly forged hate note refunded
- German President Joachim Gauck boycotting Sochi Olympics
- Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel: If you want to pay more for your doctor, you can under Obamacare
- Sen. Rand Paul: ‘I am seriously thinking about’ running for president in 2016
- Sleet, ice, deepfreeze hit large swath of U.S.
Supreme Court looks at tax issue in Obama health law
Kicking off three days of highly anticipated oral arguments over President Obama’s health care law, zealous demonstrators on Monday swarmed the streets outside the Supreme Court while inside the justices considered whether they have the power to decide the case at all.
In a hearing that felt like a warm-up to Tuesday and Wednesday, the court signaled it is not likely to let a 145-year-old tax law called the Anti-Injunction Act stop them from ruling on the merits of the case.
Neither the Obama administration nor the challengers are claiming that the tax law applies to 2010’s Affordable Care Act, but the nine justices, eager to hear that argument anyway, invested themselves in knotty questions over whether the AIA bans them from ruling on the case right now — appearing skeptical of arguments made by their own self-appointed attorney, Robert Long.
Under at least one interpretation of the AIA, the court could duck the constitutional questions over whether the government can require Americans to purchase insurance coverage or pay a penalty — at least until 2014, when the penalty kicks in.
The key question is whether the penalty the Affordable Care Act would impose on those who refuse to buy insurance would fall under the jurisdiction of the 19th-century law, which protects the government’s ability to collect taxes by blocking challenges until after a tax already has gone into effect.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer seemed doubtful that Congress intended the health care penalty to be a tax. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that’s beside the point because the lawsuit is over the mandate, not the penalty. And Justice Antonin Scalia said that unless a limit on the court’s jurisdiction is clear, the court’s usual practice is to rule.
“And I find it hard to think that this is clear,” he said.
Some lower courts have upheld the health care law, which passed Congress two years ago, while other courts have sided with challengers and found the law unconstitutional.
One panel of judges for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was premature to consider challenges to the bill because of the AIA. Even though neither the Obama administration nor the Affordable Care Act’s opponents believe that to be the case, the Supreme Court wanted to hear those arguments.
At times Monday, the Obama administration’s chief attorney, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., seemed to get tripped up with the complex arguments. He repeatedly called the penalty a “tax” — drawing a correction from Justice Breyer, who countered that it in fact was just a penalty, under the law.
The seemingly arcane point matters to the Obama administration, which argues that while the penalty isn’t a tax for purposes of the AIA, it is a tax when it comes to the extent of leeway Congress is granted under the Constitution’s tax-and-spend powers.
Mr. Verrelli is expected to make those arguments this week when the court reaches the real crux of the case.
Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. pointed out the seeming contradiction.
“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” Mr. Alito said. “Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.”
As the justices huddled in their deliberations over the tax law, protesters gathered outside the court to argue over the broader implications of the case, which could set precedents on how far the federal government’s powers can reach.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- A familiar fading feeling for McMahon in Connecticut
- Romney’s bid to undo health law faces hurdles
- Hill GOP presses Medicare probe
- Romney, Obama advisors butt heads over binders, Big Bird and “Romnesia”
- Outsiders abide by rules in Brown-Warren race
Latest Blog Entries
- Obama: Hole U.S. 'digging out of' requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- Sen. Richard Durbin: No line in the sand on unemployment benefits
- Dick Cheney: Family feud over gay marriage has been 'dealt with'
- Sen. Rand Paul: Supreme Court needs to re-examine Fourth Amendment
- Sen. Rand Paul: 'I am seriously thinking about' running for president in 2016
- 'Hunger Games' delivers Obama's message on income inequality
- Rep. Mike McCaul: 'Al Qaeda's on the run' is 'false narrative'
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Entertainment News and Reviews from Washington, D.C. and beyond.
Get in the middle of all the action inside and outside the boxing ring.
Let it snow
White House pets gone wild!