> . . . . A federal judge has already ruled that the mandate that
> makes Obamacare possible is illegal on the grounds that the
> federal government can't force a citizen to purchase services
> from a private vendor.
It wasn't just a federal judge. It was two. But three others - the most recent, just about two weeks ago - ruled otherwise. Hence, the score to date: two against and three for. And more decisions can be expected.
> * * * [Presumably the supreme court will decide the matter in
> +/- 2012]. Looking at this (blatently political right wing) court,
> I would think the betting would be that it will uphold the objection.
The betting appears to be predominantly that the Supremes will not uphold the objection. As a not untypical example, see, f'r'instance, Prof. Lawrence Tribe's Feb. 7, 2011 N.Y. Times "On Health Care, Justice Will Prevail" Op-Ed piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html although Tribe's pandering mode of argument suggests weakness/defensiveness in the sense of its transparently being a not so back-door effort plaintively to argue to the Supremes by pretending that a majority will be "just" more than being addressed to the Times' general readers.
> (Besides the fact that I'm not sure I object to the reasoning
> in itself, so far as I can judge secondhand. (I haven't read the
> opinion.))
Not that any actually sane person would want to subject himself or herself to this exercise, but you might presume (or maybe even become close to sure) otherwise if you read any of the three decisions upholding the law and, for that matter, also the two that ruled against it. Anyway, a good summary is provided by Dist. of Columbia Judge Kessler in her well-reasoned decision in the Mead et al. v. Gonzalez et al.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/mead_opinion.pdf in which (especially beginning at p. 25) she addresses directly and comes close to ridiculing the arguments of the judge's who ruled the (so-called) "mandate" unconstitutional.
> So I guess the question is: am I missing something? Is there
> a reason Supreme Court watchers consider this highly unlikely?
Subject of course to the always present reality that it is more than a little of a Fool's Game to purport to be able to predict future U.S. supreme court rulings, Yes, for at least these two reasons:
First and as others have noted, it is far from clear that the corporate interests the Supremes by their result oriented rulings try for the most part to favor agree that the (so-called) "mandate" is not desired by them as, to the contrary, it was a major presidential and congressional gift to the insurance industry (and to Big Pharma); and,
Second, to the extent that the justices are intellectually/jurisprudentially influenced by past Supreme court rulings, the reasoning and conclusions of the majority (and, indeed, more than merely glimmers in Scalia's concurrence and perhaps also some arguable hints even in Thomas' dissent) in the recent home-grown/not-for-commercial- sale marijuana case, Gonzalez v. Raich, 525 U.S. 1 (especially the majority's opinion at pp. 17-22), in reiterating rather than retreating from the famous 1942 ruling in Wickard v. Fillburn, 371 U.S. 111 (the growing wheat for personal use case), and the court's (including Scalia's) distinctions in Gonzalez of the two other comparatively recent rulings (also analyzed and distinguished by Judge Kessler) that seemed to retreat from Wickard strongly (at least intellectually) support Tribe's analysis.
BTW, I use the above parenthetical "so called" qualifier advisedly, since there are two basic, "The Emperor Isn't Wearing Any Clothes!" elements to the "mandate" and (also so-called) "penalty" if an individual not exempted by the recent law from (purportedly) having to do so does not purchase health care insurance coverage. at least for persons who understand then decide to avail themselves of these realities:
The first is that, for individuals, the violation of the "mandate" (putatively) subjects one to a requirement to pay a "penalty" which, however (even if collectible), is minimal compared to the likely cost of buying private insurance. There consequently is a built-in statutory cost-vs.-benefit premium favoring individual non-compliance. Which is exactly why right-wing bloviators/activists (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, among others) have been fulminating that this element of the new federal law is a fraud, a stalking-horse for sooner rather than later single-payer.
The second is that what is labeled as if) a "penalty" is made essentially non-collectable by the same law - hardly a mere detail, although this perhaps too frequently is overlooked both the law's supporters and critics.
> Because neither the Obama side nor the single payer activist
> side seem to be banking on it. Although to me it seems more likely
> than not.
By Obama's comments the other day and also the administration's already extravagant grants of waivers and stated willingness to provide other waivers, one can't reasonably even guess what Obama and his congressional allies are banking on in this connection.
> * * * So it would seem single payer forces should be organizing
> for a doomsday in our favor.
Amen.
> Is there a group of us who are doing so?
On a mass-politic level, it of course remains to be seen. Meanwhile, one good informational and arguably political resource, worthy of support, is PNHP - Physicians for a National Health Program -