Learn what to watch for—from the key issues of the case to the justices themselves—when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on ObamaCare in March.

With the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on ObamaCare next month, Townhall Magazine is bringing you a comprehensive preview of the major issues in the case as presented by the Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino in her white paper for the organization. In addition, attorneys Gordon D. Todd and Brian P. Morrissey have provided analysis on what to watch for from each justice.  Here is a taste of the Townhall Magazine's can't-miss March feature, "ObamaCare at the Supreme Court: What to Expect" :

Note: Carrie Severino will be filing three amicus briefs in this case, all in support of the parties challenging the law. Two are on behalf of a coalition of U.S. senators, and a third is on behalf of Speaker of the House John Boehner. Below are excerpts from the white paper the author prepared on the case for the Judicial Crisis Network and are running in Townhall's February issue:

Two years after the mammoth Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging the law’s constitutionality that is historic in its proportions. The justices will read over 1000 pages of filings from the parties alone—and likely far more from groups filing friend-of-the-court or “amicus curiae” briefs. They will hear five-and-a-half hours of oral arguments over a period of three days. All this will determine not only the survival of the president’s signature legislation but whether there still are any meaningful constitutional limits on the federal government’s power.

The biggest target for challengers of the law is its central provision: the mandate that all Americans (and lawful residents) purchase government-approved health insurance. Twenty-six states also argue that it violates their state sovereignty by coercively conditioning all Medicaid spending on dramatic expansions in eligibility.

The way the complicated legislation was drafted has brought in two additional issues. First, the Court must decide whether the parties can even sue before the law takes full effect in 2014. Additionally, the Court has to consider whether, in such a complicated piece of legislation, invalidating a central provision like the individual mandate means that the whole law must fall with it. ...

Watching the Justices During PPACA Oral Arguments

*note: this section authored by Gordon D. Todd and Brian P. Morrissey

Sitting center stage in the ObamaCare oral arguments will be the nine men and women whose constitutional offices and oaths were intended to shield them from political influence and whimsy. These oral arguments promise to provide plenty of both, and throughout, the advocates will probe for arguments that resonate with particular justices.

Chief Justice Roberts

As with many “landmark” decisions, this case presents the possibility of a 5-4 vote on an important and contentious political issue. That doubtless weighs on Chief Justice Roberts’ mind. During his confirmation hearings and afterwards, Roberts emphasized that consensus—and, where possible, unanimity—are valuable as they “promote clarity and guidance” to lawyers and lower courts, and more stability in the long run. While a divided opinion may be inevitable, to the extent a procedural issue presents the chance for a narrow ruling securing a broad consensus among the justices, the chief justice will certainly study it carefully.

If a 5-4 decision is unavoidable, Chief Justice Roberts has shown that he will not hesitate to join the battle where necessary.

On the merits, Roberts’ views will be among the most interesting to watch. The chief has had limited opportunity to address the scope of congressional power, giving Court watchers little to discern his thoughts on federalism and state’s rights. Two cases offer potential—albeit contradictory—clues. ...

Read more of these experts' analysis in the February issue of Townhall Magazine, including:

--what each side will be arguing and the 4 main issues at stake
--which issues will appeal to which justices
--how the case came to the Supreme Court
 

Order Townhall Magazine today to read the full report in the February issue.

I know, it's not news, but isn't it a little bit nice to hear him admit it?

What else can we get Biden to admit?

Americans for Prosperity, a group loathed by President Obama, is wishing Ronald Reagan a happy 101st birthday.

In his Address to Joint Session of Congress in February of 2009, President Obama stated that, “our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives.”

But Redspin, a leading IT security assessment company, determined quite the opposite.

The [Redspin’s] annual survey, "Breach Report 2011, Protected Health Information,” found breaches in all 50 states, and examined a total of 385 incidents affecting over 19 million individuals since the HITECH Act's breach notification rule went into effect in August 2009.

This translates to a 97 percent increase in health data breaches from 2010 to 2011.

As physicians and hospitals all over the country rush to implement electronic medical records by 2014 or face considerable penalties by 2015, the level of attention given to securing health information ought to become a priority.

According to Healthcare IT News, the Redspin study also found that:

Malicious attacks (theft, hacking, and insider incidents) continue to cause 60 percent of all breaches due to the economic value of a personal health record sold on the black market and for medical ID theft used to commit Medicare fraud, the study found.

If implementation without more rigorous IT protection continues, the only certainty is that your medical history, often accompanied by date of birth and social security numbers- will be hacked. This is the kind of performance delivered in only one year with government involvement in your healthcare. What’s next? More errors? Increased costs? Or worse, lives lost? 

Just two weeks ago the Obama Adminstration rejected approving the Keystone Pipeline, a project that not only would have employed thousands, but would have also provided lower energy costs for millions of Americans. In his own State of the Union address, Obama called for America to become more energy independent. But, as usual, the numbers speak louder than Obama's empty rhetoric. In the past four weeks, prices at the pump jumped 19 cents, and economists project gas will cost more than $4 per gallon by summer 2012.

After rising 19 cents a gallon in the past four weeks, regular unleaded gasoline now averages $3.48 a gallon, vs. $3.12 a year ago and $2.67 in February 2010.

Prices could spike another 60 cents or more by May. "I think it's going to be a chaotic spring, with huge price increases in some places," says Tom Kloza of the Oil Price Information Service. Kloza expects average prices to peak at $4.05, although he and other industry trackers say prices could be sharply higher in some markets.

The Obama Administration no doubt will blame skyrocketing oil prices on the tension in the Middle East, fair enough, but if Obama would approve projects like Keystone, we wouldn't have to worry about tension in the Middle East bumping our energy prices up in the future. Gas prices have doubled under Obama, jumping 100 percent since George W. Bush left office.

Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office.

The oh-so-magnanimous federal government reserves the divine right to bestow subsidies on its politically-favored subjects, and these subsidies can take multiple forms, including direct cash payments and grants, tax breaks, and providing loans at below-market prices. All types of subsidies distort free-market signals and put some sort of damper on free enterprise -- with the ability to subsidize, the federal government renders itself capable of picking the marketplace's winners and losers based upon politics instead of merits, and encourages rent-seeking behavior rather than the artlessly efficient and wholly unbiased regulatory mechanism of competition. This is particularly and egregiously true in the American energy sector: in the general stampede for subsidies, almost no form of energy -- renewable or fossil fuel -- has been left out, and the tax code concered with the energy industry is accordingly convoluted and cumbersome.

Last week, Senators Jim Demint (R-South Carolina) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act (EFEPA), a bill to repeal all energy-specific tax credits.

Senator DeMint said, “Our tax code is riddled with loopholes for special interests and it’s time to end this corporate welfare that is hurting our economy. When Washington picks winners and losers in the energy market, those with the highest paid lobbyists win while the small businesses and taxpayers lose. We shouldn’t favor ethanol over hydrogen, nuclear over natural gas, or oil over renewables. The free market economy works when everyone competes on a level playing field and works to provide Americans with the best, lowest-cost products. The ultimate solution is to create a true flat tax that ends all corporate welfare, and this is a significant first step.”

Senator Lee said, "The federal government has for decades been making the mistake of picking winners and losers in the energy industry. Not only does this go against the very nature of the American economy, but it is accomplished by adding layers of costly complexity to our tax code. The waste and futility of our current energy policies are demonstrated time and time again, from the backfiring of ethanol mandates to the bankruptcies of favored companies like Solyndra to the utterly inexplicable rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. In this era of rapidly growing energy demands, we must be willing to stop government interference in the energy market and the obstruction of domestic energy production. There is no more efficient way to power the nation."

An excellent, bold proposal that should (in theory) be able to appeal to the hearts and minds of both "drill, baby, drill"-types and the "greener-than-thou" crowd, for several reasons. First off, it could put an end to a lot of the political gamesmanship that goes into the federal government's Solyndra-esque endeavors, in which they attempt, in their neither august nor judicious but complete lack of wisdom, to "invest" our own money for us and ostensibly safeguard our futures on our behalf (yeah... no). In an even larger context, however, this bill would simplify the tax code and stop many of the subsidies received by the fossil fuel industries. Right now, we as consumers don't necessarily realize the full extent of the costs of gasoline and electricity -- the price we pay at the pump and our utilities bills are what we feel like we pay for our traditional energy sources, because these subsidies are built into the prices. Ergo, we have less incentive to conserve our use of these resources, and our demand for new, alternative, and renewable types of energy is lower than it might otherwise be.

All types of energy deserve a "fair shake," to borrow a phrase from President Obama, but they deserve it from the free market, not from the auspice of the federal government's wishful thinking. I have absolutely nothing against alternative energy in theory, but it must demonstrate itself capable of fluidly fitting in with our infrastructure, efficiently meeting consumer demand, and competing on its own merits -- greenies may (mistakenly, I believe) argue that our consumption of fossil fuel isn't sustainable in the long term, but fiscal insolvency definitely isn't.

Rove is darned right this was a political ad for a second Obama term.

Union patronage reciprocated.