WASHINGTON — US Supreme Court justices yesterday signaled through rapid-fire questions that they were gunning to rule on ObamaCare and not dodge the issue.
As they opened three days of oral arguments, the justices were as feisty as the hundreds of supporters and opponents of the law who demonstrated outside on the courthouse steps.
It was a strong indication that the justices are eager to hand down a ruling, expected in June, on whether President Obama’s historic health-care overhaul violates the US Constitution by requiring Americans to buy insurance.
The decision promises to have far-reaching consequences not just for health care in the United States, but also for the 2012 election, with all potential Republican challengers running on their opposition to ObamaCare.
Opponents of ObamaCare — officially known as the Affordable Care Act — waved “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and chanted, “We love the Constitution.”
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum even showed up at the demonstration outside the courthouse.
Law supporters marched in a circle chanting, “Care for you. Care for me. Care for every family.”
The legal challenge was brought by 26 states and a small-business group.
The high stakes and historic nature of the case drew more than 400 people who packed the courtroom, including lawmakers and administration officials.
In a torrent of questions, the justices picked apart an argument that the court can’t even take up the case because of the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act, which bars most lawsuits challenging a tax that hasn’t yet been paid.
The tax penalty under ObamaCare, to be levied for noncompliance with the new mandate that most Americans must buy health insurance, doesn’t take effect until 2014.
If the 1867 law applies, the court would be blocked from tackling the constitutional issue at the heart of the ObamaCare challenge.
But the government, which wants a ruling on constitutionality, will argue the penalty both isn’t and is a tax.
Several justices focused on the fact that unlike most taxes, the tax penalty was not intended to raise revenue.
“This is not a revenue-raising measure,” liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said to Washington attorney Robert Long, who was appointed to argue that the tax rule does apply.
Questions were posed by eight of the nine justices, with only Justice Clarence Thomas not asking a question, as is his custom.
Additional reporting by Gerry Shields