Is Obama's Health Care Reform Threatened?
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 2 October 2011
by Jean-Sébastien Stehli (link to original)
(France) on 2 October 2011
by Jean-Sébastien Stehli (link to original)
Translated from
by Rhianna White.
Edited by Hoishan Chan.
Few people have paid close attention to it, but it’s a fact that could have enormous consequences for the White House and the health insurance system, on which Barack Obama has spent much energy and political capital.
The Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear its appeal against a decision of the Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, Ga., which had rescinded the key provisions of the health care reform passed by Congress in 2010. A decision of nine experts (even though we had trouble qualifying the type of judges who had given the presidency to George Bush, and, who had, among other things, decided that the financial contributions from companies to some candidates in some elections were protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of expression…) should make a decision next May or June.
Up until now, the Department of Justice had triumphed wherever the law guaranteeing health care coverage to all Americans had been put into question, except in Atlanta. The magistrates estimated that the Constitution wouldn’t authorize the law to require citizens to buy health insurance. It’s for this reason that the government decided to speed up the process and demand the Supreme Court to decide, once and for all, on the constitutional legalities of its reform.
“Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed,” said the Department of Justice. “We believe the challenges to Affordable Care Act — like the one in the 11th Circuit — will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.”
This proves to be very optimistic. The court of Chief Justice John Roberts is greatly divided on both sides of the clear-cut ideological line, five conservative voices against four liberal voices. It is a must that the government comes to convince a minimum of one justice to reach a victory.
It’s an important political risk for the 44th president. If the judges decide to cancel the health care statute, the decision will fall right into the middle of the presidential campaign. At the same time, a negative decision from the bench could rally the apathetic voters already scandalized by the decision of the judges on the legality of the protection of political contributions under the First Amendment. But in the other sense, the validation of the statute could encourage the opponents of the reform to elect representatives equally hostile to the reform in the hope of reaching a lot of critics in Congress.
Up until now, the three jurisdictions in the three states have made some different decisions. In total, 26 states have committed to proceedings to cancel the reform. Rather than wait for the judicial process to end by reaching the Supreme Court, the government has taken the lead. It’s a political risk, but it can pay off at a time when the White House has a need to muster its demobilized troops because of the lack of aggressiveness from Barack Obama.
The Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear its appeal against a decision of the Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, Ga., which had rescinded the key provisions of the health care reform passed by Congress in 2010. A decision of nine experts (even though we had trouble qualifying the type of judges who had given the presidency to George Bush, and, who had, among other things, decided that the financial contributions from companies to some candidates in some elections were protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of expression…) should make a decision next May or June.
Up until now, the Department of Justice had triumphed wherever the law guaranteeing health care coverage to all Americans had been put into question, except in Atlanta. The magistrates estimated that the Constitution wouldn’t authorize the law to require citizens to buy health insurance. It’s for this reason that the government decided to speed up the process and demand the Supreme Court to decide, once and for all, on the constitutional legalities of its reform.
“Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed,” said the Department of Justice. “We believe the challenges to Affordable Care Act — like the one in the 11th Circuit — will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.”
This proves to be very optimistic. The court of Chief Justice John Roberts is greatly divided on both sides of the clear-cut ideological line, five conservative voices against four liberal voices. It is a must that the government comes to convince a minimum of one justice to reach a victory.
It’s an important political risk for the 44th president. If the judges decide to cancel the health care statute, the decision will fall right into the middle of the presidential campaign. At the same time, a negative decision from the bench could rally the apathetic voters already scandalized by the decision of the judges on the legality of the protection of political contributions under the First Amendment. But in the other sense, the validation of the statute could encourage the opponents of the reform to elect representatives equally hostile to the reform in the hope of reaching a lot of critics in Congress.
Up until now, the three jurisdictions in the three states have made some different decisions. In total, 26 states have committed to proceedings to cancel the reform. Rather than wait for the judicial process to end by reaching the Supreme Court, the government has taken the lead. It’s a political risk, but it can pay off at a time when the White House has a need to muster its demobilized troops because of the lack of aggressiveness from Barack Obama.