The Court is not inclined to recuse itself.
Monday's Supreme Court hearing, beginning the mega-case that will decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), included "hard-nosed questions" from the Justices, said Modern Healthcare, but few clues as to which way the judges were inclined.
But from the way the Court treated the attorney they'd appointed, at the Obama Administration's request, to advance the theory that SCOTUS shouldn't consider the case at all because that would violate the Anti-Injunction Act, one thing was clear: The Justices wouldn't be shy about rendering judgment.
The Anti-Injunction argument basically focuses on whether the money the ACA requires citizens to pay for insurance and/or penalties can be considered taxes -- in which case, per an 1867 federal law, no suit can be heard until those "taxes" have actually been paid. (The ACA's money terms don't kick in until 2014.)
Justice Sotomayor asked attorney Robert Long "what 'parade of horribles' would follow if the court decided it could hear the case now," said Modern Healthcare. Long answered that considering the argument at all created a "risk that litigants and federal judges may see such a decision as an opening to consider granting other waivers to the Anti-injunction Act in other cases..."
Justice Scalia then joked, "So there will be no 'parade of horrors' because all federal judges are intelligent," reports Modern Healthcare.
"Those who watched the arguments came away with the impression that the justices wouldn’t let the Anti-Injunction Act deter a ruling," said Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post. Judging by that exchange, we'd say she's right.
Next up on Tuesday: The Big One.