Oral arguments begin next week. Ilya Somin makes the case against the individual mandate:
Cohn counters many of Somin's arguments. Cohn also considers the unintended consequences if the Supreme Court rules the mandate unconstitutional:
Ironically, some conservatives might also come to rue such a decision. After all, if it’s unconstitutional to compel contributions towards private health insurance, then surely it’s unconstitutional to compel contributions toward private investment accounts – which happens to be the idea many conservatives still have for replacing Social Security. As Simon Lazarus, counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, noted last year in Slate, two of the conservative appellate judges who rejected these lawsuits cited that very possibility in their rulings.
Toobin fears the Supreme Court will rule against the law:
In order to strike down health-care reform, the new Republican Justices would have to change the underlying constitutional law, which they have proved themselves more than capable of doing. They have already cut a swath through the Court’s precedents on such issues as race, abortion, and campaign finance, and it’s possible that they will assemble the votes to do the same on the scope of the Commerce Clause. The high-stakes health-care case is a useful reminder of the even higher stakes in the Presidential election. If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be [Obamacare foe] Brett Kavanaugh.
David Kurtz hypes the case:
For the weightiness of the legal issues and their political impact, the Supreme Court’s decision on the health care reform law will probably rank only behind Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore as the most consequential cases of the last 50 years.