Proactive Supremes

[olde north church]

As I watch the President jerk around with his "signature accomplishment" once more, I wondered if there is anything the Supreme Court can do to strike down/void the law now.  Is it required for a case to run its way throught the court system?
Thanks

[Rapunzel]

As I watch the President jerk around with his "signature accomplishment" once more, I wondered if there is anything the Supreme Court can do to strike down/void the law now.  Is it required for a case to run its way throught the court system?
Thanks

On very few occasions they allow a case to jump the line, but given they already rejected an attempt a few weeks ago the odds are nill and none that King Roberts is going to help the country out.

[olde north church]

On very few occasions they allow a case to jump the line, but given they already rejected an attempt a few weeks ago the odds are nill and none that King Roberts is going to help the country out.

But they can't reach out and say what boyking is doing with obamacare and say he has voided the law with his changes?

[Rapunzel]

But they can't reach out and say what boyking is doing with obamacare and say he has voided the law with his changes?

Nope.  Someone with standing (damages) will have to file suit. Even congress cannot file.

[Oceander]

But they can't reach out and say what boyking is doing with obamacare and say he has voided the law with his changes?

In a word, no.  Somebody has to sue, they have to have a real, live issue, and there has to be some sort of remedy a court could award if it found in favor of the plaintiff.

[jmyrlefuller]

As I watch the President jerk around with his "signature accomplishment" once more, I wondered if there is anything the Supreme Court can do to strike down/void the law now.  Is it required for a case to run its way throught the court system?
Thanks

Pretty much yes. In fact, as of now, it would have to wait at least a year for the case to be filed-- after the "tax" has been collected (it's not officially collected until this year's taxes are filed, next April) under the Anti-Injunction Act.

The strongest case, though-- the head tax/minimum penalty issue-- doesn't effectively kick in until later, when the minimum penalty starts to affect a good chunk of lower income people (the penalty for the 2014 tax year is so low that you would have to be making less than $9500 a year-- dirt poor, really-- to trigger the minimum, and those people generally don't have lawyers).

There are some things that can be addressed right now (such as the pending cases regarding the contraception mandate) and by no means is the door closed on the court avenue, but it is going to be a few years.

I just hope and pray the conservatives on the courts hold on. They aren't getting any younger.

[Oceander]

Pretty much yes. In fact, as of now, it would have to wait at least a year for the case to be filed-- after the "tax" has been collected (it's not officially collected until this year's taxes are filed, next April) under the Anti-Injunction Act.

The strongest case, though-- the head tax/minimum penalty issue-- doesn't effectively kick in until later, when the minimum penalty starts to affect a good chunk of lower income people (the penalty for the 2014 tax year is so low that you would have to be making less than $9500 a year-- dirt poor, really-- to trigger the minimum, and those people generally don't have lawyers).

There are some things that can be addressed right now (such as the pending cases regarding the contraception mandate) and by no means is the door closed on the court avenue, but it is going to be a few years.

I just hope and pray the conservatives on the courts hold on. They aren't getting any younger.

The issue becomes live when the tax is paid and unless the Obamacare tax has been given separate treatment, it will have to be paid on a pay-as-you-go basis through withholding or estimated tax payments, so theoretically there could be a live case after the end of the first quarter of 2014.

[rb224315]

I guess the only thing Congress could do is withhold funding or change the law, right?  Obviously, neither is possible as long as 0bama is president and the GOP doesn't have a veto-proof majority in Congress . . .

BTW, my fantasy is that the Repubs win veto-proof majorities in Congress and strike down 0bamacare while the boy king is still in office.  Sadly, doing so--along with the other things the GOP should be expected to do--would help the economy and 0bozo would end up getting the positive legacy he so badly wants.  Clinton sure benefited by having a Repub Congress when he was in office.