Regardless of outcome, high court health law decision will be landmark ruling

News outlets explore and analyze various elements of the Supreme Court's consideration of the health law.

The New York Times: News Analysis: Insurance Mandate May Be Health Bill's Undoing
As Barack Obama battled Hillary Rodham Clinton over health care during the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008, he was adamant about one thing: Americans, he insisted, should not be required to buy health insurance. … Now President Obama may wish he had stuck to those words. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to take up a constitutional challenge to his landmark health care bill, and a decision could come in the midst of Mr. Obama's 2012 re-election campaign (Stolberg, 11/15).

St. Louis Beacon: No Matter How It Decides, Health Care Ruling Will Be Landmark Supreme Court Decision
It is possible the court could decide almost nothing. One threshold question it agreed to spend 60 minutes hearing is whether it was premature to challenge the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase health care or pay a penalty. ... But Alan Howard, a constitutional law professor at Saint Louis University law school, doesn't expect such an anti-climactic result. "If at least five justices (and certainly if more than five) can agree on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the individual mandate provision, then I think they will reach the merits and not punt on ripeness grounds," he wrote in an email. (Freivogel, 11/15). 

WBUR: 'Obamacare' Will Rank Among The Longest Supreme Court Arguments Ever
When the United States Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a challenge to the health care reform law, the Court also announced that the parties would have more than the usual one hour to argue the case before the justices. That is not unheard of in particularly important cases -; Bush v. Gore was allotted ninety minutes. ... Since the 1970 rule went into effect limiting time to thirty minutes per side, only two cases have come close to the time allotted for health care (Christy, 11/15). 

The Hill: Sessions Presses Holder On Justice Kagan's Involvement With Health Law
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on Tuesday pressed Attorney General Eric Holder for more information about Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's involvement with the health care reform law after new emails emerged showing her rooting for the law when she was solicitor general. Administration emails recently obtained by the conservative CNSNews.com through a Freedom of Information Act request show Kagan telling a former colleague "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," regarding the reform bill. The emails have rekindled calls for Kagan to recuse herself from ruling on the health care reform law next year because of a provision of the U.S. code that calls on justices to disqualify themselves when they have "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy" while in government service (Pecquet, 11/15).

CQ HealthBeat: NFIB Lawyer Describes Timetable For Health Care Lawsuit
Supreme Court oral arguments in the health care lawsuit will kick off with a debate over the requirement that all Americans have health insurance, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs said Tuesday at a breakfast briefing. The court has ordered a highly unusual five-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, and they will be spread over the morning and afternoon of two days, said Gregory Katsas, who represents the National Federation of Independent Business in its suit against the law. Katsas said court officials sent lawyers involved in the case a memo laying out a timetable for the suit's consideration (Norman, 11/15).