Affordable Care Act Supreme Court Prediction Thread

Polk

Classic
Aug 25, 2009
9,791
577
138
Ost
Get your guesses in here before oral arguments start next week.

1. Will the Anti-Injunction Act (which prevents claims on a tax before it has levied) be used to kill the case for lack of jurisdiction?
2. Is the individual mandate constitutional?
3. Can the individual mandate be severed from the rest of the bill?
4. Is the Medicaid expansion constitutional?

Who ends up writing the majority opinion? Who writes a concurrence? A dissent?

Remember, this thread is about projecting what you think the court will do, not what you want the court to do.
 
Honestly, I don't know. The court leans conservative and on that note, taking down the bill is likely but because the mandate is so integral with the rest of the bill and there are parts in there that are necessary/extremely popular I am not sure the court is actually willing to strike the law down. There are too many questions, not enough answers.
 
My predictions:

The court will not throw the case out on Anti-Injunction Act grounds.
The court will uphold the mandate.
Even if they fail to uphold the mandate, it will be severed from the rest of the bill.
The Medicaid expansion will be ruled constitutional. That will be the least contraversial part of the case (only Thomas will dissent on that part).

I think the ruling will be 6-3 (liberal wing, plus Kennedy and Roberts).
 
My predictions:

The court will not throw the case out on Anti-Injunction Act grounds.
The court will uphold the mandate.
Even if they fail to uphold the mandate, it will be severed from the rest of the bill.
The Medicaid expansion will be ruled constitutional. That will be the least contraversial part of the case (only Thomas will dissent on that part).

I think the ruling will be 6-3 (liberal wing, plus Kennedy and Roberts).

It will be 5-4 and struck down on the individual mandate. However, as you stated, the individual mandate will perhaps be severed from the law itself leaving a huge boondoggle of a law inoperable. I have steered clear of the Anti-Injunction Act because the brief on OYEZ is beyond my comprehension. I beleive the liberal prediction on Roberts is misplaced and desperate. The fact that the Obama Admin is changing their arguement to suit previous opinions by Roberts will not sway the opinion of the court. Of course, the courts are also the most important issue of the 2012 election. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/214534-the-most-important-issue-of-the-2012-election.html Well, I tossed my chips in. No doubt you created this thread for more specificity and a better debate. However, if that’s what you want I shall allow you to kick it off.
 
Last edited:
If the court upholds the bill, it will be giving sweeping new powers to our federal government. I certainly don't like that idea....at all.

Well, the government forced hospitals to take care of those who cannot afford it which created a market failure. To fix their market failure, they now want to force people to buy insurance which will lead to another market failure among insurers and employers who will always take the cheaper route and dump their employees on the government option. This will create anohter market failure as the cost predictions will be far higher than the government predicted and beyond the governments ability to pay for it. That will lead the government in to regulating every aspect of life to keep costs low and healthcare rationing. So yes, if the government has the right to force you to buy something there is no limit toward how they can regulate your life.
 
My predictions:

The court will not throw the case out on Anti-Injunction Act grounds.
The court will uphold the mandate.
Even if they fail to uphold the mandate, it will be severed from the rest of the bill.
The Medicaid expansion will be ruled constitutional. That will be the least contraversial part of the case (only Thomas will dissent on that part).

I think the ruling will be 6-3 (liberal wing, plus Kennedy and Roberts).

It will be 5-4 and struck down on the individual mandate. However, as you stated, the individual mandate will perhaps be severed from the law itself leaving a huge boondoggle of a law inoperable. I have steered clear of the Anti-Injunction Act because the brief on OYEZ is beyond my comprehension. I beleive the liberal prediction on Roberts is misplaced and desperate. The fact that the Obama Admin is changing their arguement to suit previous opinions by Roberts will not sway the opinion of the court. Of course, the courts are also the most important issue of the 2012 election. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/214534-the-most-important-issue-of-the-2012-election.html Well, I tossed my chips in. No doubt you created this thread for more specificity and a better debate. However, if that’s what you want I shall allow you to kick it off.

I welcome more of your input. That's a very thoughtful post. I can see what you mean about Roberts, but I also see an off chance Scalia could rule to uphold the mandate (at least, that conclusion would flow logically from his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich).
 
If the court upholds the bill, it will be giving sweeping new powers to our federal government. I certainly don't like that idea....at all.

Well, the government forced hospitals to take care of those who cannot afford it which created a market failure. To fix their market failure, they now want to force people to buy insurance which will lead to another market failure among insurers and employers who will always take the cheaper route and dump their employees on the government option. This will create anohter market failure as the cost predictions will be far higher than the government predicted and beyond the governments ability to pay for it. That will lead the government in to regulating every aspect of life to keep costs low and healthcare rationing. So yes, if the government has the right to force you to buy something there is no limit toward how they can regulate your life.

I see two problems with this argument.

1. There is no "government option", only an individual market for insurance. Indeed, it would be a challenge to argue the individual mandate is unconstitutional if there were a public option, as it would be mimicking the general structure of Medicare.
2. I've never understood the argument that the availability of exchange subsidies will result in employers dropping coverage because it would be cheaper to do so. If that were the case, why not just drop coverage entirely in the pre-ACA world, where it would be costless to do so?

As an aside, unless health care is going to take up the majority of output (or even otherwise, as the number of doctors is not limitless), some sort of rationing will occur. Even a completely open market with no Medicare and Medicaid would involve rationing.
 
Get your guesses in here before oral arguments start next week.

1. Will the Anti-Injunction Act (which prevents claims on a tax before it has levied) be used to kill the case for lack of jurisdiction?
2. Is the individual mandate constitutional?
3. Can the individual mandate be severed from the rest of the bill?
4. Is the Medicaid expansion constitutional?

Who ends up writing the majority opinion? Who writes a concurrence? A dissent?

Remember, this thread is about projecting what you think the court will do, not what you want the court to do.

a poll would have been nice;)
 
I didn't want to create a separate thread for every question.
 
My predictions:

The court will not throw the case out on Anti-Injunction Act grounds.
The court will uphold the mandate.
Even if they fail to uphold the mandate, it will be severed from the rest of the bill.
The Medicaid expansion will be ruled constitutional. That will be the least contraversial part of the case (only Thomas will dissent on that part).

I think the ruling will be 6-3 (liberal wing, plus Kennedy and Roberts).

It will be 5-4 and struck down on the individual mandate. However, as you stated, the individual mandate will perhaps be severed from the law itself leaving a huge boondoggle of a law inoperable. I have steered clear of the Anti-Injunction Act because the brief on OYEZ is beyond my comprehension. I beleive the liberal prediction on Roberts is misplaced and desperate. The fact that the Obama Admin is changing their arguement to suit previous opinions by Roberts will not sway the opinion of the court. Of course, the courts are also the most important issue of the 2012 election. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/214534-the-most-important-issue-of-the-2012-election.html Well, I tossed my chips in. No doubt you created this thread for more specificity and a better debate. However, if that’s what you want I shall allow you to kick it off.

I welcome more of your input. That's a very thoughtful post. I can see what you mean about Roberts, but I also see an off chance Scalia could rule to uphold the mandate (at least, that conclusion would flow logically from his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich).

A few seconds listening to Scalia and you will understand that he would never go for it. I would watch what you read in the media when it comes to opinions on the Justices. Court commentary in newspapers, online sites, and blogs such as the ones that are warning hypocrisy if the conservative justices don’t submit to their will don’t see the constitution from an originalists/founders/conservatives point of view. The liberal sources that spout such predictions are only warning the justices and preaching to the choir.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFgKA-LfyWI&feature=related]Speak softly & carry a big stick pt 1 - YouTube[/ame]
 
Last edited:
If the court upholds the bill, it will be giving sweeping new powers to our federal government. I certainly don't like that idea....at all.

Well, the government forced hospitals to take care of those who cannot afford it which created a market failure. To fix their market failure, they now want to force people to buy insurance which will lead to another market failure among insurers and employers who will always take the cheaper route and dump their employees on the government option. This will create anohter market failure as the cost predictions will be far higher than the government predicted and beyond the governments ability to pay for it. That will lead the government in to regulating every aspect of life to keep costs low and healthcare rationing. So yes, if the government has the right to force you to buy something there is no limit toward how they can regulate your life.

I see two problems with this argument.

1. There is no "government option", only an individual market for insurance. Indeed, it would be a challenge to argue the individual mandate is unconstitutional if there were a public option, as it would be mimicking the general structure of Medicare.
2. I've never understood the argument that the availability of exchange subsidies will result in employers dropping coverage because it would be cheaper to do so. If that were the case, why not just drop coverage entirely in the pre-ACA world, where it would be costless to do so?

As an aside, unless health care is going to take up the majority of output (or even otherwise, as the number of doctors is not limitless), some sort of rationing will occur. Even a completely open market with no Medicare and Medicaid would involve rationing.

1) Your getting crazy over the words I use to explain exactly what it is. I either get healthcare or pay the fee right? Or is it a tax? Or is it a penalty? And that tax/penalty/fee goes to what?

2) Accept it or not. If it makes good business sense than I would certainly do it before I compete against those who do.

3) I would rather rationing occur naturally via supply and demand without government intervention in collaboration with the pharmaceutical companies. One thing is always clear, the government does nothing better than the market.

However, I see most of our exchange here is ill placed and already moving away from both your claim and mine. I don’t want to ruin this thread by swaying from the constitutional merits of the case.
 
Last edited:
Tea Leaf Readings and Other Arts & Sciences
Was McCarthy A Political Heir Of La Follette?

Get your guesses in here before oral arguments start next week.

1. Will the Anti-Injunction Act (which prevents claims on a tax before it has levied) be used to kill the case for lack of jurisdiction?
2. Is the individual mandate constitutional?
3. Can the individual mandate be severed from the rest of the bill?
4. Is the Medicaid expansion constitutional?

Who ends up writing the majority opinion? Who writes a concurrence? A dissent?

Remember, this thread is about projecting what you think the court will do, not what you want the court to do.
I'll wait until arguments are actually made so as to know what I'd be commenting on. but thanks for the heads up :eusa_angel:
 
Tea Leaf Readings and Other Arts & Sciences
Was McCarthy A Political Heir Of La Follette?

Get your guesses in here before oral arguments start next week.

1. Will the Anti-Injunction Act (which prevents claims on a tax before it has levied) be used to kill the case for lack of jurisdiction?
2. Is the individual mandate constitutional?
3. Can the individual mandate be severed from the rest of the bill?
4. Is the Medicaid expansion constitutional?

Who ends up writing the majority opinion? Who writes a concurrence? A dissent?

Remember, this thread is about projecting what you think the court will do, not what you want the court to do.
I'll wait until arguments are actually made so as to know what I'd be commenting on. but thanks for the heads up :eusa_angel:


The arguments have already been made. The have briefs submitted by both sides. The justices have no doubt already made up their minds and are making rough drafts of their opinions. Oral argument is only to get both sides to answer questions where there is ambiguity in their argument. If you want to see the arguments look here.
 
It will be 5-4 and struck down on the individual mandate. However, as you stated, the individual mandate will perhaps be severed from the law itself leaving a huge boondoggle of a law inoperable. I have steered clear of the Anti-Injunction Act because the brief on OYEZ is beyond my comprehension. I beleive the liberal prediction on Roberts is misplaced and desperate. The fact that the Obama Admin is changing their arguement to suit previous opinions by Roberts will not sway the opinion of the court. Of course, the courts are also the most important issue of the 2012 election. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/214534-the-most-important-issue-of-the-2012-election.html Well, I tossed my chips in. No doubt you created this thread for more specificity and a better debate. However, if that’s what you want I shall allow you to kick it off.

I welcome more of your input. That's a very thoughtful post. I can see what you mean about Roberts, but I also see an off chance Scalia could rule to uphold the mandate (at least, that conclusion would flow logically from his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich).

A few seconds listening to Scalia and you will understand that he would never go for it. I would watch what you read in the media when it comes to opinions on the Justices. Court commentary in newspapers, online sites, and blogs such as the ones that are warning hypocrisy if the conservative justices don’t submit to their will don’t see the constitution from an originalists/founders/conservatives point of view. The liberal sources that spout such predictions are only warning the justices and preaching to the choir.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFgKA-LfyWI&feature=related]Speak softly & carry a big stick pt 1 - YouTube[/ame]

I don't think he will go for it (hence my earlier statement), but it would follow from the reasoning of his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich. He'll be called out for hypocrisy because his stance will be hypocritical. Then again, that's nothing new for the conservative justices. Bush v. Gore is a great example of the hypocrisy. For years, the court's right held a very difficult to meet standard for equal protection violations. When they needed a much looser standard to accommodate their political interest, however, they instantly found an equal protection violation even though there was no actual harm shown at all.
 
I welcome more of your input. That's a very thoughtful post. I can see what you mean about Roberts, but I also see an off chance Scalia could rule to uphold the mandate (at least, that conclusion would flow logically from his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich).

A few seconds listening to Scalia and you will understand that he would never go for it. I would watch what you read in the media when it comes to opinions on the Justices. Court commentary in newspapers, online sites, and blogs such as the ones that are warning hypocrisy if the conservative justices don’t submit to their will don’t see the constitution from an originalists/founders/conservatives point of view. The liberal sources that spout such predictions are only warning the justices and preaching to the choir.

I don't think he will go for it (hence my earlier statement), but it would follow from the reasoning of his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich. He'll be called out for hypocrisy because his stance will be hypocritical. Then again, that's nothing new for the conservative justices. Bush v. Gore is a great example of the hypocrisy. For years, the court's right held a very difficult to meet standard for equal protection violations. When they needed a much looser standard to accommodate their political interest, however, they instantly found an equal protection violation even though there was no actual harm shown at all.

You seem to be pressing me futher away from your op claim. I will not respond to Bush v. Gore because its so odd of a case and frankly, I havent read it. I was always under the impression that the states were in control of the elections but if Bush got off with a 14th Amendment petition then I beleive that liberals got served a dose of their own medicine. I suppose your assertion could be equally said of the liberal justices?

Nevertheless, Ive posted another thread. I know you'll love it! Its hours of fun for you and I. Check it out here >>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...e-and-a-preview-of-the-arguments-to-come.html I will do my best to keep it on topic.








.
 
Last edited:
Bush v. Gore is interesting to me because if you take the argument of the conservative justices at face value (selective county recounts violate equal protection, because the error rate will be different), the entire voting system is unconstitutional, since we all different sorts of voting machines, each with their own failure rate.
 

Forum List

Back
Top