March 28th, 2012
04:34 PM ET
10 years ago

Supreme Court considers whether to let parts of health care law stand

Washington (CNN) - The Supreme Court concluded a marathon public debate on health care Wednesday with justices signaling an ideological divide that could topple some or all of the the sweeping reform bill championed by President Barack Obama.

On the third day of oral arguments on legal challenges to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the justices tackled the question of what would happen if they ruled that the heart of the law, the individual mandate that is its key funding mechanism, was unconstitutional.


Filed under: Health care • Supreme Court
soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. diridi

    Car in industrialized nation is necessity, not luxury, why should I pay car insurance.
    Why should I pay FICA.
    Why should I pay Property taxes. are these Government's Mandates?
    why should I drive right lane?

    March 28, 2012 07:42 am at 7:42 am |
  2. Rudy NYC

    I was gravely disappointed with the weak argument presented by the Solicitor General. To be stumped by the comparison to broccoli was embarassing. The justices compared human lives to food, and then a specific food. The presumptions behind that argument were seriously flawed. Not everyone eats broccoli, but everyone uses or has used health care. We have laws on the books that make it a crime not to obtain health care for someone in distress. What was he thinking?

    March 28, 2012 07:46 am at 7:46 am |
  3. demwit

    –"with renewed focus on an issue once dismissed by many legal and political analysts as trivial."

    Hey I know those guys..., not very good are they.

    March 28, 2012 08:00 am at 8:00 am |
  4. Wire Palladin, S. F.

    The Supreme Court is responsible for placing Bush in the presidency in 2000 by a 5-4 vote, giving us Citizens United and reversing 100 years of court decisions by a vote of 5-4, and will be able to send America to becoming a third world country by ruling on the ACA 5-4. It appears that the Supremes are run by big donors.

    March 28, 2012 08:02 am at 8:02 am |
  5. Dominican mama 4 Obama (the real one)

    "So five of the conservatives are clearly troubled by the mandate, clearly troubled by the scope of the administration's argument, clearly searching for a limiting principle.
    "CLEARLY searching for al limiting priniciple". Hmm. What does that mean? Are they looking for something to SAVE the mandate, the prinicipal funder of the bill, or are they searching for a principle they can hang their robes on to shoot it down?
    Verilli made my blood boil. No passion, ill prepared. Dissappointing performance at a crucial moment from what I saw.
    Fascinating tug-of-war though. Will be interesting to see if partisanship will be upheld at the Supreme Court level as well.
    Obama 2012. Seriously America.

    March 28, 2012 08:23 am at 8:23 am |
  6. diridi

    This law is dire needed legislation for the good of the public in USA. True, true., Nothing unconstitutional of this law. True.

    March 28, 2012 08:42 am at 8:42 am |