Pelosi's specific Supreme Court health care prediction
April 4th, 2012
11:22 AM ET
6 years ago

Pelosi's specific Supreme Court health care prediction

(CNN) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi bucked the assessment of Supreme Court analysts and pundits Tuesday by predicting a favorable ruling from the court on President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law.

Speaking at a luncheon meeting in New York, Pelosi predicted the court would uphold the Affordable Care and Prevention Act's constitutionality with a 6-3 decision.

- Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

"I'm predicting 6-3 in favor, but we shall see. It's a lesson in civics, and I respect it. I respect the court and judicial review," Pelosi said. She made the remarks at the Paley Center for Media and video of the event was posted on their website.

Last week, many analysts offered a grave appraisal of the law's chances after hearing oral arguments on various aspects of the Affordable Care and Prevention Act, specifically the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" which requires all citizens to obtain health insurance or pay a fine.

Pelosi said her party was more than willing to go through the process of defending the mandate in courts, and said the law was written to withstand judicial scrutiny.

"We've always respected judicial review, and the Constitution, and we wrote the bill in an iron-clad way in terms of its constitutionality," Pelosi said. "But you never know what the court will do. I have confidence, since we're talking about the law of the land, and our compliance with it, that we will be OK."

The California Democrat said the bills provisions, including allowing young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance plans and disallowing insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, had already benefited more than 80 million Americans.

"We can't roll that back, so we have to find a way to keep it," Pelosi said. "Again, we're speaking in the theoretical. I think the bill will be upheld. But we really do have to find a way to keep what's in the bill."

Pelosi also pointed to aspects of the health care measure that impacted women, including a provision that allows for greater access to contraception. Pelosi labeled the women-specific measures "enormously popular with the public."

Pelosi described a phone call with Obama following the law's passage in 2010.

"The day after it passed the president called us and said, 'Last night when you passed the bill I was happier than when I was elected president of the United States.' What a beautiful thought," she said.

Also see:

Santorum on losses: 'It's halftime'

Romney pounces on Obama's budget remarks

Gingrich not pleased after shout out from Obama

Filed under: Health care • Nancy Pelosi
soundoff (44 Responses)

    If the SCOTUS does not hold up the law, they'll be viewed as a activist court. Citizens United was all the justification I needed to see that this was a activists court. I hope Madam Leader is right. If the bill is overturned, I feel sorry for all the people who are already benefiting from the plan, because the republicans have no alternative solution to replace it with.

    April 4, 2012 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  2. Rudy NYC

    This boils down to making an individual pay for their own health care, or making everyone else pay for that individual's health care. But, seeing how they ruled that: corporations are people; you can be strip searched for littering; declared that spending money is the same as free spech; I fully expect the SCOTUS to do what is best for the health insurance industry.

    April 4, 2012 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  3. Fair is Fair

    Pelosi predicting the bill SHE concocted will be upheld. Talk about some earth-shattering news.

    April 4, 2012 11:38 am at 11:38 am |
  4. Anonymous

    I wonder what the rationale is behind Justice Smith, 5th Circuit, ordering the Justice Department to file in that court in a pending case a position paper addressing whether the President thinks the Supreme Court has the power to srtrike down an act of Congress on constitutional grounds. The obvious answer is yes, he does, but the argument for judicial restraint is strong. Mr. Justice Smith is a Republican appointee with a clear conservative agenda. By jumping into a partisan political situation apart from the case before him, he seems to be putting his political bias on display, and judicial restraint be damned.

    April 4, 2012 11:39 am at 11:39 am |
  5. rightytighty

    Meanwhile..., in today's modern world, another so-called "non-interest" issue not being covered by the progressive media.
    The Justice Department has 24 hours to respond to appeals court order to explain whether it believes judges can overturn federal laws, after Obama 'challenged' the Supreme Court by saying it would be 'unprecedented' if it overturned any part or all of ObamaCare.

    April 4, 2012 11:43 am at 11:43 am |
  6. Four and The Door

    Pelosi said her party was more than willing to go through the process of defending the mandate in courts, and said the law was written to withstand judicial scrutiny.
    Then apparently it was written by someone who knew absolutely nothing about what The Constitution says about the division of federal and state responsibilities. James Madison and the founding fathers were very clear about these responsibilities. I will give Minority Leader Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and just call her remark incompetence.

    April 4, 2012 11:45 am at 11:45 am |
  7. RealityBites

    Its a "fantasy" to think "every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is activist.

    April 4, 2012 11:46 am at 11:46 am |
  8. Data Driven

    Pelosi is a pretty canny inside player, so she very well may know something we don't, but I doubt it. The conservatives on this bench have demonstrated time and again that they're partisan hacks. Look for Obamacare to be completely overturned. It will be an erroneous and harmful ruling.

    April 4, 2012 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  9. Fair is Fair

    "This boils down to making an individual pay for their own health care, or making everyone else pay for that individual's health care."
    Not really, Rudy. The bill came in at a cost to the taxpayer of just under $1 Trillion (CBO estimate now double that amount). Please explain how that is "making an individual pay for their own health care instead of making everyone else pay for it"? If you were correct, wouldn't it be budget neutral? Just asking...

    April 4, 2012 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  10. md

    Pelosi and her extreme liberal policy has lead the country into bankruptcy. She is the one who had to push for Obamacare
    at the time when majority democrats were at work. Even her State which she represents is bankrupt.
    This country simply does not get it.........................

    April 4, 2012 11:49 am at 11:49 am |
  11. Joe

    ObamaCare did not pass with an overwhelming majority, but by a party-line vote in the Senate and House, and without the support of a single member of the Republican Party, the most astonishing thing about Obama's diatribe was the fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional tradition it revealed.

    Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.

    Obama, a former constitutional law teacher, knows this and should be ashamed of himself for threating the Supreme Court for doing the job "We the People" expect.

    April 4, 2012 11:51 am at 11:51 am |
  12. Chromedome

    How can Pelosi say the bill was written in an ironclad fashion when she herself said when the bill passed that "now we will find out what's in the bill"? Utterly ridiculous. But, we have come to expect that from Pelosi.

    April 4, 2012 11:52 am at 11:52 am |
  13. Truth and Nothing But the Truth

    Well, I guess this just proves how insane and out of touch with reality Pelosi is. A mighty fine example of leftwing insanity leading the House Democrats. Without the Obama adminstration defining SOME kind of limiting authority for this mandate, it would mean the federal government could force US citizens to do anything wiht total disregard to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

    Justice Kennedy stated it very precisely. The relationship of the people to the government is changed in a very fundamental way. We would be slaves and the federal government the master. The Supreme Court would NEVER allow that. If it did, then the Democrats would lose in a massive landslide and Constitutional Amendments would have to be drafted to free the people from such slavery. Otherwise we might as well rename the country to Northern Cuba.

    April 4, 2012 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  14. Four and The Door

    If part of Obama's 2012 strategy is to march out Nancy Pelosi, I am sure the Republicans will be happy to give her a microphone.

    Romney/ Ryan 2012

    April 4, 2012 11:59 am at 11:59 am |
  15. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair asked:

    Not really, Rudy. The bill came in at a cost to the taxpayer of just under $1 Trillion (CBO estimate now double that amount). Please explain how that is "making an individual pay for their own health care instead of making everyone else pay for it"? If you were correct, wouldn't it be budget neutral? Just asking...
    Ahem, the cost of entitlements without the bill is well over $1 trillion. The bill begins the shift of the cost burden off of the taxpayers and those with health insurance back to the health insurance providers, where it belongs.

    I think that it is crazy that insurers are permitted to automatically drop people and deny them coverage at age 65. Yet, Paul Ryan seems to think that those seniors will be able to purchase health insurance despite the fact that virtually *all* insurers currently refuse to carry them. He's the Pied Piper of Medicare.

    April 4, 2012 12:04 pm at 12:04 pm |
  16. Myviewis

    Obama's health care plan is the same as Mitt Romney's health care plan with the exception that Obama's is Federal. If the courts do not have a problem with Mitt Romney's health care plan introduced to Massachussets 5 years ago and it has been successful according to reports, then why would we think the Supreme Court will have a problem with Obama's health care plan since it is the same as Romney Health Care Plan in Massachussets? If the Supreme Court rules against Obama health care plan then that ruling should also be a ruling against Romney Health Care Plan in Massachussets. Can't get rid of one and keep the other. Of course, the Supreme Court might rule against Obamacare because Obama's plan takes money from Medicare unlike Romneycare that does not touch Medicare funds. And Obama's plan will need to raise taxes unlike Romney's it did not raise taxes in Massachussets.

    April 4, 2012 12:04 pm at 12:04 pm |
  17. Dan J

    Does she know something she might not supposed to? She just seems a little too confident.

    I'm really pissed that the "unelected" officials are being accused of "activism." If they uphold the law, would they still be accused of judicial activism? The supreme court and the judicial branch is the foundation of our country, and for the president to undermine that is dangerous territory.

    What people aren't looking at is the fact that the liberal judges are all an unwavering slam-dunk vote in favor of the law. Its the conservative judges that are potential swing votes. That just goes to show who is being influenced by their parties ideology, and who is actually doing their job.

    In the past several years, I can't think of a single time a liberal judge has once voted alongside the conservatives. I don't get why the conservatives are considered the "partisan hacks" when they are the only ones who consistently demonstrate the most variable voting record on the supreme court. Its the liberals that are persuaded by party affiliations.

    April 4, 2012 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm |
  18. angryed

    Well now...I wonder if the Supreme Court will read the bill before ruling on it ?? Or will they follow your advice and just rule on it now and read it later to find out what is in it ?? Well Nancy ? which will it be ?

    April 4, 2012 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm |
  19. angryed

    Read it first or just rule on it now and read it later ??

    April 4, 2012 12:14 pm at 12:14 pm |
  20. Ray E. (Georgia)

    Obama Care will be defeated in either the Supreme Court or in the Economy. If insurance companies are forced to insure everybody they will have to raise their rates or go out of business or go bankrupt. About 2 years ago they started to raise their rates to ward off the coming onslaught of insuring everybody by Government Decree. The Government helped people buy houses they couldn't afford and now Health Coverage they can't afford. If anybody is listening they will see the folly of more social engineering. They reduced the Social Security collections so Social Security will run out of money that much sooner. Obama Care was projected to cost twice as much as was estimated. Pelosi is just whistling in the wind.

    April 4, 2012 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  21. Brett

    Thank you Speaker "We have to pass it so they can read it" Pelosi. You are irrelevant and should be hung for treason.

    April 4, 2012 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  22. Truth and Nothing But the Truth

    And Nutty Pelosi isn't even the worse the Democrats have to offer! Looney tune Debbie Wasserman Schitz wa son TV last night dodging questions about the Senate not passing a budget in three years. She was saying Harry Reid might be doing it but she didn't know! Yeah right! I guess it takes financilally challenged Democrats 3-4 years to put a budget together.

    Honestly America, with financiallly incompetent Obama, Reid and Pelosi at the helm of the Democrats over the last 4-6 years, is it any wonder they lead this country down the financial sink hole?!

    April 4, 2012 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  23. v_mag

    How about those zany Repugnants? They call single-payer health care systems "socialist" (Oooh! Scaryyyyy!) Then when they get to the Extreme Court, they say, "Oh, if Obamacare was a single-payer system, we wouldn't have a problem with it. It's just that nasty (Republican idea) of the individual mandate that we have a problem with.

    What they really want is their own health care plan, which we all know is, "If you're middle class or poor, don't get sick."

    April 4, 2012 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  24. B

    The Occupy marches are just the beginning of national Outrage concerning imbalances favoring special interests in this country, so if the Supreme Court votes against the people’s interests again on healthcare, they will lose any trust as a relevant body to the people becoming yet another faction of the Republicans/ Corporations.

    April 4, 2012 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  25. diridi

    This nation's dire need is this passed Health Care Law. Any one who has brain accepts.

    April 4, 2012 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
1 2