Nov. 14, 2011 | In a nod to the purely political aspects of the Republican push to repeal Obamacare, news of the U.S. Supreme Court deliberating the constitutionality of the bill today in the Wall Street Journal was placed under the heading, “Election 2012.”
A decision by the high court could come in late June–just as the two parties prepare for the final stretch in the 2012 presidential campaign. Opening argument will begin in March.
East Bay Rep. Pete Stark issued a statement Monday morning saying news of the court’s intention to hear the controversial law is “welcome news” and predicted victory next summer.
“I believe the Court will uphold the law,” said Stark, “which is already helping millions of uninsured young Americans get coverage, ensuring all Americans get more for their health care dollar, and reducing out-of-pocket prescription costs for seniors while increasing their preventive services at no charge.”
Stark, who turned 80 this weekend, also added a requisite swipe at conservatives. “Republicans’ repeal efforts have been harmful to Americans’ health and their pocketbooks. I’m looking forward to a Supreme Court ruling that will force Republicans to join Democrats in governing instead of continuing their political grandstanding.
Although numerous objections have been lodged in federal courts across the nation, the Supreme Court will focus on the case in the 11th District court of Appeals, which said the mandate for every American to purchase health insurance exceeded Congress’ authority.
The “Affordable Care Act,” as the landmark 2010 health insurance bill is officially called, might mean more to Stark than other lawmakers. The long-time congressman, who sits on the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, was one of the bill’s notable authors.
Stark announced earlier this year he would seek another term for Congress. It remains to be seen whehter Stark’s Democratic challenger from the Tri-Valley will attempt to exploit the health care issue among his more moderate constituents in Dublin against Stark’s heavy involvement in the law’s creation.