Nov. 14, 2011 U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)
Supreme Court of the Unites States

11-393 ) NAT. FED'N INDEP. BUSINESS V. SEBELIUS, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
            )
11-400 ) FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.
        The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-393 is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-400 is granted limited to the issue of severability presented by Question 3 of the petition. The cases are consolidated and a total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument.

11-398  DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL. V. FLORIDA, ET AL.
        The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to Question 1 presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a)." A total of two hours is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. One hour is allotted for oral argument on the additional question.

11-400 FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.
                            The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Statement by White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on the Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act

Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider legal challenges to the health reform law and we are pleased the Court has agreed to hear this case. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, one million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses. We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.

Bachmann Responds to Supreme Court Decision to Hear Challenges to Obamacare

Sioux City, Iowa - Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann issued the following statement in light of the Supreme Court decision to hear challenges to Obamacare:

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has elected finally to hear challenges to Obamacare, and given that the central issue to be reviewed is an unprecedented expansion of the intended purpose of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, I urge the court to strike down the law and rule it unconstitutional. Furthermore, I call on President Obama and Congress to cease enforcement of the remaining provisions of Obamacare immediately until the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.

"It is not the business of government, at either the state or federal level, to tell individual Americans to purchase any product or service. That's why, as president, I will not rest until the bill is completely repealed. I will replace it with a health care system that allows Americans to purchase health care individually across state lines, allows them to purchase the plan of their choice, reforms malpractice lawsuits, lowers the cost of health care for all Americans, and provides tax breaks for those who provide free health care to those who cannot afford it. We can't settle for a Republican nominee who believes that an individual health care mandate, the main issue of controversy before the court, is constitutional and either advocated for it, implemented it, or used it to justify a forced health care decision in their state."
Gov. Buddy Roemer Statement on Obamacare
Let's demand real reforms from the Presidential candidates.
 
Manchester, NH – Governor Buddy Roemer today released the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s acceptance of three cases involving Obamacare, or the requirement that individuals must purchase government approved health insurance by 2014:
 
“I applaud the Supreme Court for granting certiorari in these cases, and say ‘It’s about time.’ I am confident the Supreme Court will rule consistent with what the American people already know: the Commerce Clause has been overly expanded by the Obama administration, resulting in a loss of individual freedom. We are headed in the wrong direction with Obamacare, towards a system of less choice, less competition, lower quality healthcare, and higher premiums. As President, I will move us in the right direction – more choice, more competition, better health care for Americans.”
 
“Once Obamacare is ruled to be unconstitutional, I will do the hard work as President of replacing it with a health care system that works. I don’t hear the other Presidential candidates discussing real reforms. It’s easy enough to criticize Obamacare. It’s harder to propose a working system in its place.”
 
“Maybe it’s because I’m a 40 year diabetic that I care so much about this issue. Maybe it’s because I am not bought and paid for by big pharmaceutical companies or Super PAC’s. But whatever the reason, I will bring real reform to the health care industry. Specifically, I would:
 
1)      Make insurance companies subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, so that they could not have 50 separate monopolies in each state;
2)      Make pharmaceutical companies compete on price (they are specifically exempted under Obamacare currently);
3)      Implement tort-reform, to lower the cost of insurance premiums; and
4)      Provide incentives for medical providers to save money, by allowing them to keep 25% of savings if they maintain quality and pass on 75% of the savings to the consumer."
 
"That’s real reform. I challenge the candidates who take special interest money to come up with something better.”

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear the Challenge to ObamaCare
 
WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the challenge to ObamaCare:
 
“The Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of ObamaCare offers Americans hope that we may soon be freed of the one size fits all mandates and regulations of this disastrous policy. Republicans recognize that ObamaCare’s mandates are not only unconstitutional, but they also serve as a roadblock to economic recovery. Forced to take on additional costs, small businesses are unable to expand and hire new workers at a time when Americans desperately need jobs.
 
“Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize ObamaCare as an egregious assault on states’ rights. Then, America can focus on real market-based reforms that can expand coverage and lower costs.”
Heartland Institute Reacts to Supreme Court Taking Obamacare Case

The U.S. Supreme Court is taking on the major issues raised in litigation against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, issuing an order today granting review in three such cases. Oral argument is expected in March, with a decision by the Court by the end of June.

The Court will address the preliminary issue, whether a federal law prohibiting review of tax laws before a tax is imposed bars review here, since Obamacare taxes don’t go into effect until 2014. It also will address the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase private health insurance or be fined. Last, the Court will consider “severability.” Legislation typically includes a severability clause, which provides the balance of a law remains intact if one part of it is found unconstitutional. The Obamacare law does not include such a clause, presenting the question whether the entire law would be invalid if only the individual mandate falls.

The following statements from legal and health care experts at The Heartland Institute may be used for attribution.


“It is not an overstatement to say the fate of our Republic is at stake in the Obamacare cases.

“This case is probably the most important one to come before the Supreme Court in 80 or more years. Obamacare is, of course, epic in its proportions and amounts to a massive federal takeover of health care in the United States.

“But more broadly, the case presents the issue whether federal power has any limits at all. The Constitution empowers the federal government to ‘regulate’ commerce among states, but the Court has virtually eliminated the distinction between interstate and local commercial affairs. The Court has the opportunity in these cases to restore the distinction intended by the Founders.

“Despite the attention received by the individual mandate, if the mandate is invalidated, the severability clause issue takes on enhanced importance. Invalidating the mandate but severing it – leaving the rest of the law in place – will cause great uncertainty because the federal government has said in court in these cases the law cannot financially stand without the mandates.

“Thus there is the possibility uncertainty will abound, depending on how the Court rules, and Congress may not be in a position to resolve it so close to the November 2012 election. States now preparing to comply with Obamacare may not get the answers they need.”

Maureen Martin
Senior Fellow for Legal Affairs
The Heartland Institute


“We all knew President Obama’s health care law would end up at the Supreme Court. Now that it’s clear the justices will weigh in on the many constitutional questions swirling around the law in the spring, there is absolutely no reason states should continue implementing this controversial and unpopular law before the case is heard and properly reviewed. Too many questions remain about what portions of the law could be struck down, and every dime spent on the implementation of the law is one that taxpayers will never get back.

“Responsible legislators, administrators, and governors ought to remain patient and see what the Court decides before proceeding.”

Benjamin Domenech
Research Fellow, The Heartland Institute
Managing Editor, Health Care News


The Heartland Institute is a 27-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois; Washington, DC; Austin, Texas; Tallahassee, Florida; and Columbus, Ohio. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit its Web site or call 312/377-4000.

November 15, 2011
Cain Favors Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare

Cites New Job Layoffs in the Medical Device Industry

 
Des Moines – Presidential candidate Herman Cain favors the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare citing Constitutional concerns and recent news that Stryker medical devices will lay off 5% of its workforce, about 1,000 jobs, in preparation for the medical device tax contained in the legislation.

“We cannot afford a piece of legislation that robs Americans of their freedom to choose whether or not they want to purchase insurance,” said Cain. “The news this week that Stryker will layoff 5% of its workforce is more evidence that Obamacare is costing jobs, extending our unemployment problem.”

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would review President Obama's health care plan, particularly the mandate for the purchase of insurance.

Michigan based Stryker, is a maker of hip replacements and other medical devices. Unemployment in Michigan in September of this year was running higher than 11% and the layoffs were another piece of bad news for this pivotal election state.

“I spent 40 years in business creating jobs and fixing broken companies. I can fix this broken economy with the help of voters in 2012,” said Cain.


For More Information:
J.D. Gordon, Vice President of Campaign Communications 


November 17, 2011
Cain Requests That Justice Elena Kagan Recuse Herself
from the Supreme Court’s Obamacare Hearing


Republican presidential candidate and businessman Herman Cain today requested that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare.

As a political appointee in President Obama’s Justice Department, Justice Kagan strongly advocated for the government takeover of health care and during the bill’s debate, then- Solicitor General Kagan actively supported a government-run system and sent a jubilant email to then-Justice Department colleague Laurence Tribe saying: ““I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”

“I request that Justice Kagan recuse herself immediately from hearing the Obamacare case,” Cain said. “Members of the highest court in the land should be impartial, strictly follow the Constitution and should not carry water for former employers in the White House.”

According to 28 USC 455, Supreme Court justices must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and if they have at any time “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he or she “served in governmental employment.”

For More Information:
J.D. Gordon, Vice President of Communications