Supreme Court ruling of National Federation of Independent business v. Sebelius

Supreme Court ruling of National Federation of Independent business v. Sebelius

Introduction

This court case was brought forth in March 26 to the Supreme Court of the United States. Initially, it was several smaller cases that were all against the same thing, the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). For this reason, they were merged into one case that was named the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The PPACA, commonly known as Obamacare was a law that was implemented in March 2010 by the President of the United States. This law was created in order to ensure that all the American citizens regardless of their financial situation were able to obtain good healthcare. The law was supported by several citizens but some others strongly opposed it. They did not support it because it was expected to increase the taxes that they were paying to the government. The Obamacare intended to reduce the number of people in America who do not have any form of medical insurance (Negrin and De Vogue, 1).

In addition to this, it also proposed to decrease the cost of healthcare in the country significantly. It planned to do this by the use of tax credits, mandates and subsidies to the business owners and the people employed in the private sector. This was to be done in order to increase the coverage rate of the new law. The increase in taxes required to be paid by the business people and the ordinary citizens employed in the private sector was the reason behind the controversy against the law. As much as the PPACA was signed into law in 2010, it included several provisions that were proposed to take effect in the coming years. The nature of some of these policies aggravated the controversy that shrouded the Obamacare law further (Negrin and De Vogue, 1). The most notable of these provisions was the “individual mandate.” It referred to the existence of a shared accountability.

The people who did not have any insurance were expected to pay a penalty unless they were part of a recognized sect that prohibited this or they were financially unable to meet the costs associated with acquisition of insurance. The parties who sued this law claimed that it was not constitutional. The case took a considerable amount of time but the verdict was finally given on June 28, 2012. Chief Justice Roberts on behalf of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the law and upheld the “individual mandate” as provided in the law. The ruling declared that it was constitutional that the purchasing of health insurance was under the taxing power of the Congress (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). It was therefore lawful of them to levy higher taxes as was stipulated in the PPACA law. This case and the associated ruling have made it one of the monumental cases in American History. This ruling will be analyzed using the four models that were taught in class. The models in question are attitudinal, legal, Societal and strategic. By the use of these models, it will be a lot easier to interpret the ruling and understand why the judges upheld the law.

The Attitudinal Model

From the name of the model, it is based on the attitudes of the people in question. The attitudinal model is based on the attitudes that the judges have pertaining to the matter in question. The attitudes of these judges may be either positive or negative. Attitude refers to the perception or opinion a person has with regard to a certain issue. The individual’s attitude is determined by the personal ideologies of a person or even their experiences. In this model, the attitudes of the individuals in questions are analyzed in a bid to determine the ruling that they are likely to make on the court case in question. In this case, the attitudes of the judges may be that they are either conservative or liberal (N.a, 59).

Conservative judges often prefer to stick to the laws of the country and it is very difficult for them to side with new or foreign policies. For instance, in the case of the right of abortion, the conservative judge will prefer to vote against it as it is his or her perceptions do not comply with this ideology. Liberal judges on the other hand are open to new ideas and policies. In the case of the example above about abortion, the liberal judges may support it and claim that the person is at will to select whether to resort to abortion or not. In the case of this court case, based on the attitudes of the judges who were on the bench, one can predict the course of the case. The Supreme Court has nine judges who were appointed at different times and by various presidents as well (Negrin and De Vogue, 1).

Out of the Nine, four judges were liberal while four were conservative. The last remaining judge was somewhat conservative. Decisions were made on a majority basis in this court and the group with the greatest number of supporter was bound to win the case. The conservative judges were in support of the case and the Obamacare program. The liberal ones on the other hand were against the law and supported the business people and the employees in the private sector. The number of conservative judges in the Supreme Court was more than that of the liberal judges. For this reason, it is expected that the ruling that was to be made by these judges be in support of the Obamacare program (Negrin and De Vogue. 1)

The Legal Model

The legal model seeks to explain and predict the decisions made by for instance the Supreme Court based on the basic legal knowledge. This kind of information may be obtained from various documents that pertain to the law like the Constitution of the country in question for instance. In this model, the student seeks to explain why the judges will make a certain decision in court based on their knowledge of the law. However, this model is not an appropriate method of prediction. This is because the decisions made in the Supreme Court for instance rarely rely on the already existing laws. In several cases, the decisions made are not a simple application of these laws and this makes the legal model somewhat unreliable (N.a, 87).

In light of the legal model, the decision made by the Supreme Court in the court case National Federation of Independent business v. Sebelius, it is simple to predict the decision that was made by the judges. Based on the constitution of the United States, the several provisions of the PPACA may be used to determine the decision that would have been made by the judges of the Supreme Court. One of the most notable provisions in the PPACA is the individual mandate. This aspect requires the individuals in the country to have a shared sense of responsibility. The stipulation also stated that any individual in the country that was not under any for of insurance was liable to pay a fine. However, some people were exempted from this provision (Art. I, §8, cl. 1).

The conditions for this exemption were that the people in question were members of a religious sect that was authorized in the country of they were financially incapable of paying for any form of insurance. In the case of the latter, the cost of medical insurance was waived. Based on this provision, it would be expected that the court decision would be in the positive. This is because the act in question supports this stipulation and for that reason, in the legal model, the decision should have been positive. Still on the issue of the individual mandate, there was another controversial issue, the constitutionality of the taxing power of Congress (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). Due to the PPACA, the taxes that were paid by the business people and the people employed in the private sector were to be significantly increased. The said individuals were against this and this is why they took the matter to court.

Based on the constitution of the country, the Congress is allowed to “lay and collect taxes” (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). For this reason, the Congress’ decision to levy higher taxes to the people in question was valid. Based on this knowledge, the anticipated decision by the Supreme Court would be to uphold this provision of the PPACA. In addition to this, the section 5000A which stipulated the penalty that was issued out to the individuals who were not insured was considered as a constitutional tax as opposed to a direct tax. This difference enabled the penalty to be given without the ordinary considerations that were given on direct tax; Direct tax is levied to the localities based on the population and the productivity of the state. For this reason, the Supreme Court was expected to base its decision on this fact and, therefore, uphold this law.

The Societal Model

This model seeks to determine the decisions that the judges make based on the society in question. Society has been described in several ways but the simplest definition of a society is a group of people who are related to each other in one way or another. These relations may be through family or may arise due to interactions that they may have. Legal decisions that are made are based on the society in question most of the time. For instance, if the society holds a certain opinion with relation to a certain issue, the court will put their opinions into consideration as they make a ruling. Therefore, the societal mode seeks to enable students to predict the kind of decision that the judges are likely to make. In the case of this court case, the opinion of the American citizens was taken into consideration (N.a, 50).

This was mainly because it was a law that directly affected the Americans on a day-to-day basis. The citizens in America are divided with regard to this law. Some of them support the Obamacare program while others completely disagree with it. The people in support of this law are mostly the low and middle-income earners who were not initially able to access a convenient and affordable medical cover. The high income-earners were against this law, as it was to lead to an increase in the taxes levied on them. However, since the middle and low-income earners are greater in number than the affluent and wealthy members of the society are, the decision made was likely to be in their favor. This is to mean that the decision by the Supreme Court was more likely to be in support of the Obamacare program (Art. I, §8, cl. 1).

The Strategic Model

This model is based on strategy as its name suggests. This is to mean that the decisions made in court may be explained by highlighting the strategies behind them. A strategy refers to a plan of action made that is undetailed. This plan is made to offer the people in question with an idea of the things that will take place even if the exact details that pertain to it are not available (N.a, 98). In the case, National Federation of Independent business v. Sebelius, the strategic model may be applied to predict the decisions that would have been made by the Supreme Court. This is because the opposers of the Obamacare program did not have very strong reasons why they were against the program. For this reason, the decision of the Supreme Court was to be in favor of PPACA (Negrin and De Vogue. 1).

.

Conclusion

All these models have their advantages and disadvantages. However, some models have proven to be more effective than others are. For this reason, some may be preferred over the rest. The attitudinal model has been preferred over the years as the most appropriate method of determining the court decisions. It has been supported because the attitudes of the judges in question are the one of the most consistent things and this enables one to make an appropriate decision. The other models like the legal model may be used in some cases but the predictions that they give are not as reliable as those given by the attitudinal model are.

Works Cited

“United States Constitution” June 21, 1788. Print.

Matt Negrin and Ariane De Vogue. “Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: The Mandate Can Stay”. ABC News. 28 June 2012 Web. Retrieved 28 November 2012.

N.a. Political Science 2010. London: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]