Supreme Court ready to move to heart of health case

What do you think about this?

@@facebook=

@@

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court Monday launched the first of three historic days of oral arguments as the justices attempted to determine whether a landmark health care law signed by President Barack Obama is constitutional.

Although the justices won’t hear the heart of the case until Tuesday – which is whether the federal government has the power to compel Americans to buy private health insurance – the ornamental courtroom was the scene of one of the starkest constitutional challenges to any major law since the New Deal.

Instead, the court today heard arguments on whether they should actually be hearing the case at all. The justices must decide whether an 1867 federal law bars the courts from deciding the merits of the health law until the measure goes completely into effect in 2014.

The justices’ decision, which is expected in the early summer, is not likely to cool the intense partisan emotions that have opened up a deep chasm between liberals and conservatives.

If the court concludes the law is constitutional, it almost certainly will provide Republicans with a potent issue in the presidential and congressional elections in November. If the justices strike down parts or all of the law, it may serve as a motivator for Democrats to head to the polls in larger numbers.

At stake today, was the arcane subject of whether a lawsuit could be filed against the law before it has injured anyone. The law includes a controversial section that gives the federal government the authority to fine people who refuse to buy health insurance.

Supporters argued that mandate and the penalties were crucial to winning support from the health insurance industry. But opponents have insisted the penalties are simply another word for taxes and that the 1867 law requires those taxes to be imposed and paid before anyone can go to court.

Robert A. Long, a Washington attorney chosen by the court to argue that the justices should wait to hear the case, told the justices that the law requires the penalties to be collected like taxes – by the Internal Revenue Service.

In a sign of just how difficult a job the justices face, Long suggested that the entire law was somewhat confusing, telling the justices that he “would not argue that this statute is a perfect example of clarity.’’

U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrelli, who is defending the law for the Obama administration, insisted that the 1867 law “does not apply’’ because Congress was imposing a penalty, not a tax.

But even Verrelli seemed confused at one point as he referred to the penalty as a tax, prompting Justice Stephen Breyer to joke, “You keep saying the tax.’’