|
Neil Gorsuch on Health Care
|
|
|
Individual mandate is unconstitutional even with $0 tax
The Court's decision in CA v. TX concludes that the plaintiffs trying to undo ObamaCare had no business being in court. The case was brought by Texas officials who object to ObamaCare, centered on the law's individual mandate [which] required most
Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. In 2017, Congress amended ObamaCare to zero out this tax. The plaintiffs claimed that this zeroed-out tax is unconstitutional and also claimed that the entire law must be declared invalid
if the zero dollar tax is stuck down.In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing: "The IRS can no longer seek a penalty; there is no possible action that is causally connected
to the plaintiffs' injury."
SCOTUS outcome:Opinion authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Alito and Gorsuch dissented, [declaring the] individual mandate "clearly unconstitutional"
Source: Vox.com on 2021 SCOTUS ruling:ÿ"California v. Texas"
, Jun 17, 2021
Let Christian nursing home opt out of ObamaCare
Gorsuch wanted the full 10th Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel's ruling on a similar case involving a Catholic order, the Little Sisters of the Poor, which operates nursing homes. The panel ruled against the Little Sisters because of an opt-out
clause in the Affordable Care Act available to nonprofit organizations such as the order, allowing them to have their insurance provider absorb the cost of contraceptive coverage. That would accommodate the order's religious objections, the panel ruled,
but Gorsuch disagreed. His argument "was that the 10th Circuit had shown insufficient deference to the Little Sisters' own articulation of the tenets of their religious beliefs," SCOTUSBlog reports."Simply put, in cases that closely
divided his court and the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has shown himself to be an ardent defender of religious liberties and pluralistic accommodations for religious adherents," SCOTUSBlog notes.
Source: The Advocate on SCOTUS confirmation hearings
, Jan 24, 2017
Wrote book on Assisted Suicide, and opposes it
Gorsuch broke into book publishing 10 years ago with "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia," which examines legal, religious and ethical issues and argues against legalization--a subject with particular resonance for Coloradans after passage
of an aid-in-dying measure on the November ballot.[The Los Angeles Times noted that] he concluded arguing for "retaining the laws banning assisted suicide and euthanasia based on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the
intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."
But in terms of hinting at his judicial approach, one pundit said, the book might be most useful as a window onto the way he analyzes issues: "That would be that he really looks at
360 degrees of an issue and of the ramifications and implications of deciding one way or another. Having studied the human condition is part of what he enjoys and brings to everything he does.
Source: Denver Post on SCOTUS confirmation hearings
, Dec 11, 2016
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022