By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court justices upheld the Obamacare Law for the third time. The ruling sidestepped the question of the constitutionality of the bill by simply saying that those challenging the bill lacked the necessary legal qualifications.
The law was enacted in March 2010 and was finally passed without a single Republican voting for it. Since then, health insurance premiums have skyrocketed and many consumers have lost their coverage as a result of their inability to pay premiums.In 2016 Forbes magazine wrote, “There is ample evidence that Obamacare has caused dramatic increases in premiums.”
On Dec. 14, 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Obamacare Act was completely unconstitutional, but the ruling was stayed on appeal.
The judge said that when Congress effectively repealed the mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance in 2017, it “sawed off the last leg of (Obamacare) standing.” “The court found that the individual mandate is essential and integral to the ‘other provisions’ of the statute.”
The case was actually two cases heard together – California v. Texas, Court File 19-840, and Texas v. California, Court File On November 10, 2020, a telephonic hearing on this matter lasted 121 minutes, exceeding the scheduled 80 minutes.
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was written by Justice Stephen Breyer. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Barrett were joined by Justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. Amy Coney Barrett also joined the group.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Breyer wrote in the court’s decision that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as the Obamacare law, originally enacted in 2010, requires that most Americans receive a minimum level of basic The Obamacare law, as it is known, requires that most Americans receive a minimum level of basic health insurance.
In 2017, Congress “effectively repealed” the penalty by setting it at $0.
“Texas and 17 other states have filed lawsuits against U.S. and federal officials. Later, two individuals (Neill Hurley and John Nantz) joined the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that the Act’s minimum essential coverage requirement is unconstitutional without the penalty.
“Specifically, they say that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Tax Clause (or any of the other enumerated powers) gives Congress the power to enact the provision. …… They also contend that the minimum essential coverage requirement cannot be severed from the rest of the bill. Therefore, they argue that the entire bill is invalid.
“We do not reach issues such as the correctness of the Act, but for the State of Texas and the other plaintiffs in this lawsuit, they lack the standing to sue required to raise these issues.”
Recent Comments