Health care, other hot issues promise a landmark high court term
September 30th, 2011
12:16 PM ET
3 years ago

Health care, other hot issues promise a landmark high court term

Washington (CNN) - One of the little-known prerogatives of the U.S. Supreme Court is the justices' discretion to refuse any case on the merits presented to them for review. Only one in 10 petitions actually gets accepted. But though the justices usually say no, when epic disputes arrive at the courthouse steps - by tradition and political reality - the nine members know they are powerless to turn away.

Think segregation. Think abortion. And now the latest divisive debate over the role of government: health care reform.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Health care • Supreme Court
soundoff (9 Responses)
  1. YOU Decide 2012: A bankrupt socialist welfare country or a thriving capitalist super power

    Either way, this is a full fledged DISASTER for the Democrats.

    If the USSC rules AGAINST Obamacare, then Obama and the Democrats will have egg all over theirs faces and will have been seen as trying to foist an unconstitutional mandate on the American people. Their leftist tendencies will be front and center.

    If the USSC rules FOR Obamacare, which a majority of Americans vehemently oppose, the American people will be left with only one option of getting rid of it: voting Obama and the Democrats OUT of office.

    Just perfect!!

    September 30, 2011 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  2. ConservaFASCISTS/TEAliban/TEAhadists

    Clarence Thomas needs to be recused from the bench if health care reform goes to the SCOTUS. Major conflict of interest.

    September 30, 2011 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  3. YOU Decide 2012: A bankrupt socialist welfare country or a thriving capitalist super power

    Clarence Thomas needs to be recused from the bench if health care reform goes to the SCOTUS. Major conflict of interest.
    ===================================================================================================
    First off, judges recuse THEMSLEVES, others do not recuse them. Second, Thomas has absolutley no conflict of interest. Sotomayer, on the other hand, was personally involved in getting Obamacare passed while she was in the Whitehouse. THAT is a direct conflict of interest and she must recuse herself or be seen as corrupt.

    September 30, 2011 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  4. Fair is Fair

    "Clarence Thomas needs to be recused from the bench if health care reform goes to the SCOTUS. Major conflict of interest."
    ----–
    Elena Kagan shoud recuse herself WHEN this goes to the SCOTUS. She was sloicitor general in the Obama administration when this nightmare was hatched.

    September 30, 2011 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  5. ConservaFASCISTS/TEAliban/TEAhadists

    She was sloicitor general in the Obama administration when this nightmare was hatched.
    -----------------------------------
    She didn't influence any parts of the ACA. Whereas, a lobbyist such as Mrs. Thomas has that type of power. I'm sure her and Clarence sat at the dinner table and discussed this legislation.

    September 30, 2011 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  6. lisa2010

    how are we (who have health insurance) suppose to deal with these people (without health, because of choice) they go to emergency rooms when they ill, and cannot pay their share because of lack of health insurance... my premiums been going up because of the increasing price of health care and we're paying for those who don't have health insurance by going to emergency rooms when they're ill.. maybe something can be done to reform the obamacare, but i think that it should be mandated, so we (who have insurance) don't pay for THEIR bills..

    September 30, 2011 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  7. Rudy NYC

    somebody wrote:
    First off, judges recuse THEMSLEVES, others do not recuse them. Second, Thomas has absolutley no conflict of interest.
    -------------
    Thomas has a major problem because his wife is currently making a career out of lobbying politicians to overturn the law.

    Your argument against Sotomayor is ridiculous. I think you mean Kagan. And if Kagan were such a problem, why did Republicans vote for her appointment. They could have filibustered it like they do almost everything else.

    September 30, 2011 01:11 pm at 1:11 pm |
  8. Sniffit

    "Sotomayer, on the other hand, was personally involved in getting Obamacare passed while she was in the Whitehouse."

    First, you meant Kagan. Second, the solicitor general has no role in geting anything passed.

    September 30, 2011 01:20 pm at 1:20 pm |
  9. T'sah from Virginia

    ►ConservaFASCISTS/TEAliban/TEAhadists

    Clarence Thomas needs to be recused from the bench if health care reform goes to the SCOTUS. Major conflict of interest.◄

    Agree – and if they DON'T, that would be a problem!!!

    @YOU Decide 2012: – Keep dreaming!!! And yes, a person would have to RECUSE themselves and Clarence Thomas should, along with any other person you or Fair is Fair feel needs to be recused! Then wow – there would be only Republican appointed justices left and THAT would not cast a fair vote!!

    Obama/Biden 2012!!

    September 30, 2011 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |