Supreme court will rule individual mandate to purchase health insurance

[RB TexLa]

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Has it been excepted to be reviewed by the SC?

[DearAbby]

2. Doesn't it have to go through the lower courts first?....nt

[leftstreet]

3. Yep. And even that could take 1-2 years

No point to these polls really

[yodoobo]

4. They may not even hear the case

The power to tax as a means of influencing behavior is well established.

[dkf]

8. Precedent doesn't mean much to the SC.

Witness Bush v Gore

[yourout]

5. other......profitable.

[usregimechange]

6. Will not even take a look at it

[Dr Morbius]

7. I agree.

There's really no question about the constitutionality of the mandate. It falls under the commerce clause. SCOTUS won't take the case, I expect.

[TexasObserver]

11. There's really no question that this GOP majority on the court will do what it wants.

They'll use the commerce clause if they want to affirm the law's constitutionality. They'll go around it if they don't want to affirm it.

If the SC GOPers want to affirm, they'll affirm. If they want to find the law unconstitutional, they will. Stare decisis has nothing to do with how those five will vote. There's always a line of cases or dissents a court majority can to use to rationalize their decision

[backscatter712]

9. Yep. The lower courts will rule it constitutional, and the SCOTUS won't hear the appeal. n/t

[TexasObserver]

12. Do you understand how the SC decides which cases to hear?

First, you don't know what the lower courts will do, and you certainly don't know that they'll all affirm the law.

Second, the AGs in over a dozen states are suing, challenging constitutionality. Those are GOP Attorneys General, suing in GOP states, where the federal judges are GOP judges. The GOP controls many state judiciaries, both state and federal in those states.

There will be some cases finding the law unconstitutional, and it will be the findings at the courts of appeal which bring about the case before the Supreme Court. Once there is a split between circuits regarding the constitutionality of the law, the SC will welcome the chance to issue an opinion on it.

The SC WILL likely rule on the constitutionality of the law, but it won't be until an appeal reaches them, which could be a year or two, even on a fast track.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Cert takes 4 votes...

...so you could well have a situation where two Republicans want to review, to kill ACA, and two Democrats want to review, to stop the nonsense.

[TexasObserver]

10. Of course they'll take a look at it, if it comes up on appeal.

And it will likely come up on appeal. There are a dozen State Attorneys General suing under constitutional grounds. There will rulings in different appellate circuits and those rulings will set up the case for the Supreme Court to hear it.

The SC will hear it, and will reach a decision. The result of that decision depends on the court's make up and whether they WANT to find the act constitutional or not. As this court majority has shown, it is not troubled by precedent when it wants to go another way. Like most conservatives, they LIE about their opposition to activism and they LIE about their devotion to stare decisis.

[Statistical]

14. There is a 100% chance the Supreme Court will hear the case.

There are 18 separate lawsuits they will fall under separate federal courts who likely will reach separate decisions.

This crates a split precedent.

Just like in McDonald v. Chicago (2nd amendment case heard by SCOTUS)
you had one federal court saying 2nd applies to the states and another saying it doesn't.

The Supreme Court will not allow a split precedent to stand.