|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Justices appear skeptical that law bars them from deciding health care case
|
Parent(s) |
Issue
|
Contributor | Brandonius Maximus |
Last Edited | Brandonius Maximus Mar 26, 2012 11:31am |
Logged |
0
|
Category | General |
Author | DONOVAN SLACK | |
News Date | Monday, March 26, 2012 05:30:00 PM UTC0:0 |
Description | Supreme Court Justices on the liberal and conservative wings appeared skeptical on Monday that a law dating to the 1800s barred them from deciding whether Barack Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional, USA Today reported.
The basic question is whether the penalty for failing to buy insurance under the law is actually a tax, which could prohibit any legal challenges until someone actually pays the penalty, in this case until 2014, when that portion of the law takes effect. From USA Today:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she counted at least four similar cases in which the high court had allowed such challenges before. Justice Stephen Breyer said he agreed that the 1867 law could block courts from hearing tax challenges, but wasn't persuaded that the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. "Why is this a tax?" he asked.
Justice Antonin Scalia said that the justices are barred from hearing a suit only when Congress clearly wanted that effect. "I find it hard to think that this is clear, whatever else it is," he told Washington attorney Robert Long. [Long was appointed by the court to present arguments for the 1867 law.]
Long told the justices that the Anti-Injunction Act "imposes a pay-first, litigate later" rule that applies to "essentially every penalty" in the federal tax code. |
Share |
|
2¢
|
|
Article | Read Full Article |
|
Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|