Popularity doesn't sway the Supreme Court

Supporters and opponents of the 2010 federal healthcare overhaul have been engaged in a furious war of words in recent weeks over whether the law could stand without the individual mandate. But the apparent attempt to influence the thinking of the U.S. Supreme Court justices appears to be based on a flimsy premise.

Underlying the root of the arguments over whether the law could or should stand without the individual mandate is the broadly acknowledged reality that the mandate is both extremely unpopular by itself and also the least popular of the law's many provisions.That unpopularity—as well as the hostile questioning justices directed at the mandate during oral arguments—has led supporters to move from detailing the need for the mandate to arguing the law can stand without the requirement to have insurance.

Follow Rich Daly on Twitter @MHRDaly.


Loading Comments Loading comments...