Litigation

Handicapping the High Court on Health Care

By Peter Hardin

Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law may be years off, but for those who are following the issue, a number of commentaries already are available.

Over the weekend the New York Times published an article entitled, “The Supreme Court and Obama’s Health Care Law.” Before delving into precedents and interpretation, the article warned against jumping to conclusions about a Supreme Court ruling based on the political party of the appointing president (they stack up 5-4, by Republican and Democratic presidents, respectively):

“[T]he votes of the Supreme Court are not that easy to divine, and while political considerations can creep into any judge?s views, deeper factors are at play, said Mark Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School. Supreme Court justices, for the most part, ‘are attuned to their reputations as individuals in history, and their overall place in the government as a whole,’ he said.”

With a thanks to SCOTUSblog, here are some other recent commentaries:”Health-Care Reform and the Constitution,” by Clive Crook, in The Atlantic; “Health care ruling ignores settled law,” by Richard Bonnie, at CNN Opinion; “Health Care Law Attracts Constitutional Arguments,” featuring discussion by former solicitors general Walter Dellinger and Paul Clement, at NPR; “Can Congress Force You to be Healthy?” by Jason Mazzone in the New York Times; and “The Revolution Next Time” by Linda Greenhouse in the Times’ Opinionator Blog.

To learn more about a federal judge’s ruling that set off much of the discussion, check out Gavel Grab; the judge struck down the so-called individual mandate portion of the health care reform law.

Full post as published by The Gavel on December 20, 2010 (boomark / email).