If Barack Obama ever wanted to go down in the history books for affecting a wonderful massive American change with his Obama Health Care law, he missed the boat once U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg essentially said it was either a “wrecking operation or a salvage job” for the 2,700 page legislative effort, according to CBS News. But what’s to salvage about the law that has half the country arguing against it, including the justices now?
As a liberal justice, Ginsburg’s question about whether to scrape the entire law or merely cut out the mandate portion spoke volumes about how AmericansÂ—and the justices on the country’s highest courtÂ—feel about forcing citizens to buy health care insurance.
America is known as the land of the free, but the Obama Health Care Law was robbing citizens of their freedom to choose whether they wanted to buy an insurance product in the marketplace or not.
According to NPR, testimony about whether it is wiser to get rid of the entire law all at once and have Congress start over from scratch found support by some on the bench, but argued against by others.
Massive time and effort allegedly went into compiling a law that required 2,700 pages to contain it, so starting over would waste both taxpayer money and legislators time, on the one hand. On the other hand, if half the country is upset about the contents of such a law it seems prudent to start over and gain a greater consensus for it before it becomes a law.
The U.S. Supreme Court should deliver their decision in June on the matter, but some speculate that the High Court could deliver a decision sooner.