prev
next
Health care case seems likely to go on in court
People in support of and against health care reform legislation argue outside the U.S. Supreme Court March 26, 2012, in Washington. / AFP/Getty Images
Updated at 2:13 p.m. ET
(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court plunged into debate Monday on the fate of the Obama administration's overhaul of the nation's health care system, and the justices gave every indication they will not allow an obscure tax law to derail the case.
A decision is expected by late June, in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which all of President Obama's Republican challengers oppose the law and promise its repeal if the high court hasn't struck it down in the meantime.
With demonstrators chanting outside, eight of the nine justices eagerly jumped into questioning of lawyers about whether the case has been brought prematurely because a 19th century law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid.
"Only Justice Clarence Thomas was silent," CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said. "He hasn't asked a question in six years, and no one expected him to start today."
Special Section: Health Care
Will health care case boost the GOP, or Dems?
Poll: 47% disapprove of Obama health care law
The prematurity issue is significant because the key part of the law -- the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes -- doesn't take effect until 2014, CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford reports.
Under the new health care law, taxpayers who don't purchase health insurance would have to report that omission on tax returns for 2014 and would pay a penalty along with federal income tax on returns due by April 2015. Among the issues is whether that penalty is a tax.
The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled the lawsuits should wait until that actually happens. But even if the Supreme Court agrees, which it seemed unlikely to on Monday, the justices this week will go ahead and hear all the other arguments against the law.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., defending the health law, urged the court to decide what he called "the issues of great moment" at the heart of the case.
Audio: Listen to day 1 of oral arguments
Supreme Court transcripts
The 26 states and a small business group challenging the law also want the court to go ahead and decide on its constitutionality now.
The law has sharply divided the nation. A CBS News/New York Times poll released Monday shows 47 percent of Americans disapprove of the president's Affordable Care Act, including 30 percent who strongly disapprove. In the poll, conducted March 21-25, only 36 percent of those questioned said they support the law either somewhat or strongly.
In court Monday, the justices fired two dozen questions in less than a half hour at Washington attorney Robert Long, who was defending the appeals court ruling.
"What is the parade of horribles?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, if the court decides that penalties are not a tax and the health care case goes forward? Long suggested it could encourage more challenges to the long-standing system in which the general rule is that taxpayers must pay a disputed tax before they can go to court.
The questions came so quickly at times that the justices interrupted each other. At one point, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sotomayor started speaking at the same time. Chief Justice John Roberts, acting as traffic cop, signaled Ginsburg to go first, perhaps in a nod to her seniority.
Attorney General Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi were in the crowd that filled the courtroom's 400 seats.
Outside the court building, about 100 supporters of the law walked in a circle holding signs that read, "Protect my healthcare," and chanting, "Care for you, care for me, care for every family." A half-dozen opponents shouted, "We love the Constitution!"
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was there, too, declaring anew that GOP front-runner Mitt Romney has no standing to challenge Mr. Obama on the law since Massachusetts passed a somewhat similar version when Romney was governor. Santorum said, "If you really want Obamacare repealed there's only one person who can make that happen."
Santorum slams Romney on Supreme Court steps
A four-person student band from Howard University was part of the group favoring the law, playing New Orleans-style jazz tunes.
The law, much of which has still to take effect, would require almost all Americans to obtain health insurance and would extend coverage to more than 30 million people who now lack it. The law would be the largest expansion in the nation's social safety net in more than four decades.
People hoping for a glimpse of the action had waited in line all weekend for the relatively few seats open to the public. The justices allotted the case six hours of argument time, the most since the mid-1960s.
Nurses Lauri Lineweaver and Laura Brennaman, who are completing doctoral degrees, had been waiting since noon Sunday and got tickets to see arguments. "It's an honor to be in the court," said Lineweaver, 35.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular on CBSNews.com
- No fatalities in I-5 bridge collapse in NW Wash. 118 Comments
- Bridge section disappears in "big puff of dust"
- Young victims of deadly Okla. tornado 10 Photos
- Washington state bridge collapses 17 Photos
- Boy Scouts approve plan to accept openly gay boys 452 Comments
- Clean-up efforts underway in Okla. 29 Photos
- Kansas reporters run for tornado shelter during newscast
- Kids, teachers from destroyed Okla. school reunite
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
That is Not their fault !
In an age when Massive , I said Massive amounts of wealth are spent on Consumption of products of Entertainment, Gluttony, Military,two of everything THERE IS BASICALLY SOMETHING WRONG
The " It's all about ME society "
Isn't working !
In reality, conservative Republican's are being quite liberal. They take a very liberal approach to opposing things!!!!!
"SEC. 552. EXCISE TAX ON MEDICAL DEVICES.
9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of the Internal Rev10
enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
11 following new subchapter:
12 ''Subchapter D—Medical Devices
''Sec. 4061. Medical devices.
13 ''SEC. 4061. MEDICAL DEVICES.
14 ''(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on the
15 first taxable sale of any medical device a tax equal to 2.5
16 percent of the price for which so sold."
" ''(6) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."
The tax imposed will not be treated as a tax? If this is a credit, call it a credit - don't say that it is a tax which is not to be treated as a tax. This is twisted garbage.
Non-democratic corporate government has over time become the governing power of big business and those who rule and bid for it, to own and control the means of production and undermine the United States Constitution while hiding behind the constitution and the flag claiming patriotism.
No one one need look further than the United States Supreme court to know that concentrated non-democratic corporate wealth derived from the labor and creativity of the millions of citizens is being used as a terrorist weapon of mass destruction against those same citizens and to the concept of a free and sovereign people.
Is that true? Like what were there exact words?
Because if they've already held that they don't consider the mandate to be a tax, then it'd be inconsistent for them to say that they believe the mandate falls within Congress' power to tax. And so there'd be no way you'd logically expect them to think the mandate was Constitutional, you know what I mean?