As fate would have it, the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act almost exactly two years after its hurried, confusing passage.
While that might seem slow by real-life standards, for legal proceedings that's light speed. Not only that, but the justices have promised a decision by June, almost unheard of even by today's instant gratification standards.
The court could rule a number of different ways—as we've already reported here—from simply upholding the law, to throwing out the mandate to scrapping the entire legislation. And I've already gone on record saying that I honestly think this thing will be upheld, though I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong this time.
Recommended For You
What's interesting to me is how much time the court's set aside for arguments for this case—an exhausting six hours over the course of three days next week. And there are several issues at stake, such as the individual mandate itself, the curious severability of the law, Medicaid expansion and whether the court even has jurisdiction here based on the legal timeline involved.
The faithful political student in me—who decided against law school in favor of journalism (brilliant, no?)—respects that the justices decided to break with tradition in this case to give it the time it deserves. This is an historic, landmark case that our kids and grandkids will be talking about so it's encouraging to see this level of sobriety.
All of that being said, the cynic in me can't help but think this thing's already been decided and that every single one of those justices knows how they're going to vote on this. This display of oral arguments amounts to little more than political theater meant to dissuade anyone from questioning the court's sincerity.
My opinion shifts back and forth almost daily on this. I even brought it up with a former lawyer friend who had no good answer for me, either, despite his idealist protestations of judicial integrity.
I'd like to believe that the justices still get together to hammer out matters of law much like our founding fathers did when they forged this country—and its legal system—to begin with. But when the rest of us remain mired in partisan bickering and name calling, it's hard to believe they remain above it all—whether it's a former solicitor general on the left or an activist spouse on the right.
So, I guess, to make my own closing argument, it comes down to whether you believe the judicial branch remains a sober, detached fulcrum for our country's teetering system of checks and balances, or whether it's stuck down here in the mud with the rest of us—and just keeps it behind closed doors.
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
