Fact Based List:
The 7 Most Telling Moments from Monday March 26 Health Law Supreme Court Arguments
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 14:01
- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that the individual mandate isn’t a tax — and therefore isn’t affected by the Anti-Injunction Act — because it’s not designed to raise money for the government
- Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the Anti-Injunction Act didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of Social Security
- Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that in some places in the ACA, Congress explicitly stated when the Anti-Injunction Act would apply —and that it didn’t say so where the individual mandate is concerned
- Justice Stephen Breyer made it clear he did his homework — or at least he had his clerk do so
- Justice Samuel Alito might agree that the Anti-Injunction Act doesn’t apply — but he still took issue with some of the administration’s semantics
- Roberts noted the point of the lawsuit is “to prevent the collection of penalties.” But he wondered whether that applied, given who faces the mandate, who’s exempt & what kind of penalties apply
- Justice Antonin Scalia had a long exchange with Robert Long, the outside lawyer appointed to argue that the Anti-Injunction Act applies
Source: Politico
Source URL: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74487_Page2.html
List Ratings: |
Lists You Might Also Be Interested In
- 3 Differences Between an HSA and a Regular Savings Account
- EBRI: Average Annual Percentage Change in Deductibles, 2013 to 2020
- Six Survey Results on Physician and Patient Views on EHR vs Paper Records
- HealthGrades Liver Transplant Excellence Award Recipients
- States with the Five Lowest Rates of Any Mental Illness
Login or register to post comments