POLL: TWO THIRDS OF SUPREME COURT INSIDERS EXPECT COURT TO UPHOLD HEALTH CARE LAW
THE HILL, March 26, 2012 -- Former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued before the court mostly expect the justices to uphold President Obama's healthcare law, according to a new poll.
The poll surveyed nearly 400 former clerks and roughly 240 attorneys who have practiced before the high court. Sixty-five percent said they expect the justices to uphold the individual mandate in Obama's signature healthcare law.
The Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments in the healthcare case Monday.
Nearly three-fourths of the attorneys polled said the court will likely reach a decision now, rather than waiting until after the mandate takes effect in 2014.
And if the court does strike down the mandate, most of those surveyed said, it wouldn't throw out the entire healthcare law. Thirty-eight percent said the court would invalidate the mandate along with a few other provisions, and 36 percent said they believe the court would strike the mandate alone. Only 27 percent expect the justices to strike down the entire law.
The poll surveyed nearly 400 former clerks and roughly 240 attorneys who have practiced before the high court. Sixty-five percent said they expect the justices to uphold the individual mandate in Obama's signature healthcare law.
The Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments in the healthcare case Monday.
Nearly three-fourths of the attorneys polled said the court will likely reach a decision now, rather than waiting until after the mandate takes effect in 2014.
And if the court does strike down the mandate, most of those surveyed said, it wouldn't throw out the entire healthcare law. Thirty-eight percent said the court would invalidate the mandate along with a few other provisions, and 36 percent said they believe the court would strike the mandate alone. Only 27 percent expect the justices to strike down the entire law.
Truly, I am not concerned about this law.
The objections to it are far-fetched and do not rely on any precedent or legal foundation. It is all based on fear and supposition.
Do the Conservatives who want the Supreme Court to reject this law really want to open themselves up to the charge that the court was an "activist" court that" legislates from the bench," as they accuse so-called runaway liberal courts of doing?