(CNSNews.com) – Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said that when the Supreme Court hands down its decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare, it will be making a monumental decision to either curb big government or allow it to further expand.
“So the stakes are very high” in this case, Schmidt said a press conference on Tuesday. “I won’t predict where they’re going to go. I know where I think they should go [but] I do know this: Whatever the decision is, this is the moment when this court will either say we are going to stop – at least in this case – the ever-expanding reach of the federal government or we’re not going to stop it.”
Schmidt also said that he expects a final ruling from the court this year on whether the individual mandate in ObamaCare requiring people to buy health insurance is constitutional, and not in 2014 when the law goes into full effect.
“Based on the reaction from the bench [yesterday], the consensus seems to be that this court wants to give us an answer,” Schmidt said.
“As the plaintiffs, we’re skeptical of most of the administration’s arguments, so we were encouraged by what appeared to be the Court’s reaction yesterday,” he said. “We have terrific counsel, we’ve spent many, many months preparing this argument and in two hours a great drama is going to be played out that we’ll all look back on and, I think – depending on whichever way the Court goes – we’ll say that’s a moment that changed the direction of American history.”
Kansas is one of 26 states that have sued the federal government over the individual mandate, claiming that it is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. Schmidt, speaking at the Republican National Committee in Washington, D.C. told reporters that federal power was the major issue at stake.
“The ObamaCare law reflects the government’s insatiable appetite for control. Never before in the history of the United States has the federal government claimed the power – by command – to direct Americans to go out and purchase a product, nor has the federal government respected any limits on its desire to order states to pay increasing costs to satisfy federal desires.”