Mandate

On May 7, 2012, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the largest organization of rabbis in the United States, approved a resolution recognizing that the Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation that mandates employers provide access to contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and sterilizations forces many employers to “violate the injunctions of their religion.” The RCA, which represents more than 1,000 Orthodox rabbis, urged the Obama administration to amend the regulation to protect the religious liberties of all employers.

Steve Hayes, with A.B. Stoddard and Juan Williams, last night on Fox News:

In light of the bruising that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli took during this week's oral arguments, no one can blame Obamacare's supporters for trying to offer (belatedly) winning answers that the government’s attorney lacked. Two of the early entrants are law professors Akhil Amar and Jeffrey Rosen. But their efforts do not improve much on the government's offering.

Yesterday, we endured an esoteric debate over a jurisdictional statute that practically no one expects to actually affect the Supreme Court's review of Obamacare. Today, by contrast, was the argument we've all been waiting for: the challenge to the constitutional merits of Obamacare's individual mandate.

The solicitor general had an interesting morning. He argued before the Supreme Court's nine justices that Obamacare's individual mandate isn't a "tax"—even though he'll argue tomorrow that the mandate is a "tax." And then the government's top litigator invoked the possibility of incompetent government litigators as a reason to reject an argument raised by the plaintiffs

Welcome to the Supreme Court's review of Obamacare. One day down, two more to go.

Why is there still so much resistance among Republican primary voters to Mitt Romney, the likely but not inevitable GOP nominee? Perhaps the deepest reason is this: At a moment in history when we need a bold commitment to reform, a fundamental willingness to limit the state and revitalize self-government, Romney’s achievements and qualifications seem out of step with the times.

Ordinarily, judges decide cases by applying the text of laws and the precedents laid down in previous cases. But the Supreme Court is no ordinary court, and the cases that it chooses to decide are not ordinary ones. Cases in which the lower courts disagree; cases of utmost national importance; cases for which there is little precedent or the written law is ambiguous​—​this is the Supreme Court’s daily fare.

Super Tuesday coincides with the 28^th consecutive Rasmussen poll showing double-digit support for the repeal of Obamacare. By a margin of 11 percentage points (53 to 42 percent), the poll shows that likely voters from across the political spectrum favor repealing President Obama’s signature legislation.

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, a whopping four out of five swing-state voters regard Obamacare’s individual mandate as unconstitutional.

As BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski reports, USA Today published a health care op-ed by Mitt Romney on July 30, 2009 — just days before the start of the August recess that quickly became the August uprising against Obamacare. In his op-ed, Romney seems to encourage President Obama to move in a slower and more bipartisan manner, to abandon his planned government-run “public option” (which, under constituent pressure, the Democrats eventually did scrap), to use Romney’s Massachusetts health care overhaul as something of a model, and (as a way to keep Obamacare’s costs down) to include a federal mandate.

As the liberal website Slate has explained about Obamacare, President Obama's signature legislation "combine[s] an express mandatory insurance requirement with tax penalties . . . for noncompliance." Which is why the Obama "administration’s lawyers have cited . . . the tax . . .

Republicans have been critical of the Obama administration's "preventive care" regulation, both before and after its (meaningless) modification Friday. But have our elected leaders and our candidates made the fundamental point?