• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • VIDEOS: Obamacare at the Supreme Court

    Heritage was at the Supreme Court for the past three days to observe the oral arguments over the constitutionality of Obamacare. Heritage’s Todd Gaziano and Hans von Spakovsky sat in for each day’s arguments and provided immediate reaction after each session. For your convenience, we have corralled these videos and blog posts below.

    Monday, March 26: Anti-Injunction Act

    The biggest news from the Supreme Court’s first day of oral arguments on Obamacare was that no justice indicated he or she would be troubled reaching the merits of the larger constitutional challenges to the law. At issue was whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) would bar the Court from considering the challenge to the individual mandate in the President’s health care law, and all eight justices who asked questions seemed satisfied that one of several exceptions to the AIA applied, thereby allowing them to hear the other legal issues. Read more »

    Tuesday, March 27: Individual mandate

    Tuesday’s arguments focused on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The Solicitor General’s chief problem throughout the arguments was that he was unable to give a clear, simple, and easily understood answer to this question: If Congress has the power to compel the purchase of an insurance policy from a private company, what limiting factor is there on congressional power under the Commerce Clause? He was asked that same question more than once by different justices and never came up with a reasonable or principled constitutional distinction. Justice Scalia admitted that he came up with distinctions, but denied they were based on constitutional principles. Read more »

    Wednesday, March 28: Severability

    The Court’s morning session concentrated on whether, if the individual mandate is held unconstitutional, it can be cleanly severed from the rest of Obamacare, and if not, what other portions of the act must the Court strike down with it. Read more »

    Wednesday, March 28: Medicaid

    The Court’s afternoon session focused on whether Congress’s conditions on the states to continue to participate in the Medicaid program were constitutionally coercive. The two sessions were largely distinct but had some overlapping aspects. Read more »

    Posted in Featured, Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to VIDEOS: Obamacare at the Supreme Court

    1. Bobbie says:

      Thank you Heritage, for your excellent coverage regarding this dangerous attack!
      Why would repealing the whole thing cause a mess when it's not suppose to be implemented until 2014? Why can't it go back when the government was only involved with "oversight" of the business conduct without overstepping into the business? This would open a string of businesses and reduce costs. What the people can do the government should stay out of and the people did do before the government busted their way in.

      One of the female Justice said something to the effect of a loaf of bread and half of it being bad "conservatives" would salvage what is left to be good? Sorry Justice. Please don't put words in the mouths of others. By choice, conservatives wouldn't have boughten the loaf especially when by choice, one can bake their own bread!

      • Andrew says:

        Boughten is an adjective, not a verb (Ex: "Did you make these cookies?", "No, they are boughten cookies."). Also, people can't make their own health insurance… If you actually look past the product of health insurance, everyone already gets medical care regardless. If a poorer person is sick/injured, the hospital will treat them. The difference is, if everyone buys into health insurance, the price goes down and it doesn't economically destroy lower class families. I do believe there are other ways to go around this, but the way the conservative media is depicting this is out-right misleading. The liberal media is just the same on the other spectrum.

    2. IMO…this entire bill is unconstitutional. There are parts of this bill that have NOTHING to do with healthcare, i.e., student loans…the next Fannie Mae.

      Forcing people to buy insurance without their consent is tyranny. I believe this will come down to a 6-3 decision…yes..I believe even Breyer will see how bad this is. I also understand the court's opinion concerning their voiced opinion in not wanting to pick this thing apart. This half a loaf business is stupid. There is NO severability clause and therefore if the mandate goes down so does the entire bill. Let them reintroduce it back into the Congress and let Congress do the job they are directed to do "write laws".

      Should this bill become law, this will be the end of the United States of America, the end of our Republic and the end of our freedoms. This is why it is imperative that we have a strong, conservative congress with a majority in both houses. No more backroom deals, no more special favors and bribes so that someone will vote a certain way. The very way that this entire bill was transacted appears to be unlawful. Equal protection under the law. Why does Ben Nelson's state get special favors from the government and mine does not? Locked doors…no transparency.

      Let the free market go. Sell across state lines. In fact…if our insurance companies are so bad…let us buy from the global market until we get this under control. There are solutions to this and the Progressives were unwilling to listen to any of it.

    3. DR. J. D. VILLA says:

      I hope the justices do the right thing instead of going by party lines again. They have already shown to be partisan and activists. That's a no-no. Kagan should recuse herself. She is obviously biased and has a conflict on interest. Let's pray to God that for once this decade they do the right thing!

    4. sara says:


    5. marie says:

      the reason it was put in the constitution was because of its great principles. they still are.

    6. zorro says:

      You all are aware, are you not, that the "mandate" idea originated with the Heritage Foundation?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.