Five and a half hours or oral argument with the decision likely to come a few months before the election, this could be even 'huge-er' then it otherwise would be just on its own merits. I believe that that ObamaCare should, and will, be struck down. It will be a combination of the Individual Mandate being found unconstitutional, with the court finding no Severability that will be the cornerstone of the ruling. If not, the relationship between the government and the people will be shifted in such a way that our founding fathers would not be able to recognize our then current system.
"The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would consider several challenges to last year's health care reform law, setting up a major ruling on the Obama administration's signature legislative achievement just months before the 2012 election.
The case will probably be heard in March, making a final decision likely by the end of the Court’s term in June. Opponents and supporters of the health care law were equally delighted that the matter may be settled.
In apparent recognition of the complex issues presented by the cases, the Court allotted an unusual five and a half hours for arguments. Usually, cases get an hour of oral arguments.
The justices asked lawyers to answer four legal questions about the law in their briefs, signaling that they will rule on each.
The individual mandate. The law's requirement that virtually every individual buy health insurance is at the heart of the many challenges to the law. The challengers contend that such a requirement is unconstitutional because the commerce clause should not used to compel individuals to purchase a product they do not want.
Severability. When the law was passed, members of Congress said that the mandate was essential to make other insurance reforms in the law work. If the justices strike down the mandate, they will have to decide whether that means the law can stand without it, or the whole law must fall.
Medicaid expansion. The health care law expands eligibility for Medicaid programs by threatening to withhold all federal Medicaid funds if states don’t cover anyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty limit. Critics say that placing such significant financial conditions on a state’s behavior is “coercive” and exceeds Congress’s spending power. The issue has only come up so far in the 11th Circuit cases, but neither the trial court nor the Appellate Court agreed with this argument.
Jurisdiction. Judges in two Appellate courts have argued that the time is not right for the courts to even consider whether the law is constitutional. They cite an 18th-century law that prevents individuals from challenging their taxes until after they've been assessed and paid.
The justices will have to decide whether the law's penalty for not buying insurance functions enough like a tax that these rules should apply. If they agree with the argument, lawsuits will be barred until after the mandate goes into effect."