The questions asked by U.S. Supreme Court justices Tuesday during arguments on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law suggest that a majority on the court may have serious doubts about whether the law can be upheld. Yesterday, justices will considered whether parts of the law can remain in place if the court strikes down the requirement that individuals carry health insurance.
Realistically, In the case before them it is not the job of the Supreme court to decide or even take into account the sustainability of the rest of the Law. The case before them is the Constitutionality of the Mandate to purchase Health Insurance or be penalized. What happens to the law if they decide the Mandate is Unconstitutional is not their role in the case.
Justices on the asked highly nuanced questions over the three straight days of oral arguments. It seemed that some are torn on whether it would be more of a break from past cases to strike down the so-called individual mandate to obtain insurance or to uphold it. What past cases have to do with if a law is constitutional or not is beyond me.
They were aggressive in their questioning of both sides, and fired off hard-hitting questions about the limits of the federal government's power and whether it could even extend to requiring eating broccoli and buying gym memberships or cars, and rightfully so.
The main stream media defined Conservative Justices took aim at the insurance mandate, while the so called liberal justices supported it. Which is to be expected.
We question the Medias defining a Supreme Court Justice as Conservative or Liberal, They are there to rule on the law and constitutionality of various issues. It is not their role to impose their assumed political ideology
.jpg)
.jpg)
