ObamaCare: the gloves are off.

• Author: Calvo, Vincent P.
• Position: WASHINGTON BEAT - Barack Obama

In late March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments to affirm or dissolve the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration's signature health reform law. At the time of this writing, the fate of the act is in the hands of the nine Supreme Court justices who are expected to disclose their decision sometime this month. It will undoubtedly be a ruling of historic significance and likely will add more fuel to an already hot 2012 political campaign.

HISTORIC MOMENTS FOR THE 'SUPREMES'

The three days of oral arguments covered four key areas: the constitutionality of the individual mandate, Medicaid expansion, the Anti-Injunction Act and severability--or deciding whether the law can remain in place even if a key provision is removed.

The first day of arguments focused on whether the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 should bar the Court from making a decision until at least 2015, when the law's penalties take effect. The act typically requires that people actually pay a "tax" before they can challenge it in court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out four cases where the Court allowed challenges to proceed in spite of the law, setting the stage for arguments on the health law.

Days two and three confirmed that when it comes to landmark statutes, the Supreme Court holds the final say. When U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. began his argument on the second day, the Court's more conservative justices almost immediately pounced on the offensive by countering with a series of clever analogies, including nine mentions of "broccoli." These metaphors focused around the argument that if the government can make citizens purchase insurance, what stops it from making them buy healthy vegetables, too?

Some of the most intense and striking questions came from Justice Antonin Scalia, at one point prompting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to interject and assist Verrilli with his own argument differentiating a tax from a penalty. Defining the difference between a penalty and a tax is a key element to the case, as it will affect how the Court rules in future cases regarding constitutional exercises of power and how Congress regulates commerce.

Ginsburg stated that the bill's penalty is different from a tax in that it does not raise revenue, but instead is designed to affect the conduct of people waiting to purchase insurance until they need medical assistance.

When the historic legal arguments...