Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott fights hard for Texans and for Conservative Principles. After the passage of Obama’s Health Care Law, including the Individual Mandate, Abbott joined 26 other states in filing a lawsuit against the new law arguing that it is unconstitutional.
I was one of the few people to file an individual lawsuit against the Federal Government arguing that the new law infringed upon my constitutional rights. I filed the lawsuit pro se and did not really expect it to go anywhere. But that was not the point. The point was that I was going to make a stand and actually try to do something. I figured that if there were several lawsuits filed against the new law then that would mean a greater chance for at least one of them to make it through. My lawsuit kept going for over a year while the government and I argued over whether or not I have standing to file the lawsuit because I could not prove damage to me until the law goes into effect yet. In the end my case was dismissed, at least until I could show the damage once the law goes into effect.
Other challenges were successful however, including the challenge that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed.
Texas won a huge victory in court when Florida Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the Individual Mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, and because it is not severable from the law, the entire law was struck down.
That set up a future showdown in the United States Supreme Court.
On Monday November 14th, 2011, the Supreme Court Accepted to Hear the Case!
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama's signature law on health care, it said Monday in an announcement that has nearly as much impact on partisan politics as the final decision has on the law itself.
The challenge in the case, brought by 26 states out of Florida, is based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance.
Which way will each judge go in deciding if law is unconstitutional?
The nine-member court will also look at severability, meaning if the mandate falls, could the rest of the law survive since it is primarily built on the revenues collected by forcing people to buy health care.
The court is also folding in an additional case on the tax implications of the law.
The case is one that all sides want heard. But hearing the case this session -- arguments could come in March -- means that a ruling will come in June -- in the heat of the 2012 election cycle.
Some argue that a defeat for Obama would be as beneficial as a victory since it would take away an economic and philosophical argument that Republicans have used to bash the law that will impact roughly 18 percent of the nation's annual gross domestic product. Others say nothing good could come for Obama if his premier legislative victory is declared unconstitutional.
If the mandate is wiped off the map but the law itself isn't, the president would be able to promote aspects that most Americans say they accept, including leaving 26 year olds on their parents insurance and not allowing insurers to reject clients with pre-existing conditions.
"Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 1 million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.
The 11th Circuit Court, where the case comes from, has ruled in favor of the opponents. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, said the high court brings the challenge one step closer to elimination.
"Given the substantial implementation costs associated with this 2,700-page law--and the unconstitutional mandate that it will impose on all Americans -- we are pleased that the Supreme Court has moved quickly and agreed to hear this very important case," he said.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican presidential candidate who has made repeal and replacement of the law the first plank of his economic plan, tweeted that he is "pleased" the court has agreed to hear the case.
