This was actually expected, although how many different challenge aspects weren’t fully known, until now. First, a few source links for you…

(Source link: SCOTUS blog)
Court sets 5 1/2-hour hearing on health care
(snip)

Lyle Denniston Reporter
Posted Mon, November 14th, 2011 10:49 am
Court sets 5 1/2-hour hearing on health care

Setting the stage for a historic constitutional confrontation over federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday granted three separate cases on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law, and set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral argument, to be held in March. The Court, however, did not grant all of the issues raised and it chose issues to review only from three of the five separate appeals before it. It is unclear, at this point, whether all of the cases will be heard on a single day. (UPDATE: The Court has informed the lawyers involved that the case will be argued over two days.)

The Court will hold two hours of argument on the constitutionality of the requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance by 2014, 90 minutes on whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down, one hour on whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate, and one hour on the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled. The Court chose those issues from appeals by the federal government, by 26 states, and by a business trade group. It opted not to review the challenges to new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers. It left untouched petitions by a conservative advocacy group, the Thomas More Law Center, and three of its members, and by Liberty University and two of its employees.

Accepting the constitutional dispute on its very first examination of the cases brought to it speedily by lawyers, the Court wrote three separate orders outlining how it would deal with the cases. That meant that they would not be grouped together, but that they likely will be heard close together, if not back-to-back on a single day.

(Read the rest at the “5 1/2 hr” link above)

The Court’s agenda on health care – Analysis
(snip)

Lyle Denniston Reporter
Posted Mon, November 14th, 2011 12:45 pm
The Court’s agenda on health care
Analysis

The Supreme Court, using its very wide option to frame its own agenda, on Monday reopened one of American history’s most fevered constitutional debates, going back to the very architecture of the Constitution and the Founding era: how to divide up power between national and state governments. The health care cases the Court promised to review involve nothing less than a choice between an ever-expanding social safety net, spreading out in federal law, and a multitude of more localized decisions by state government and the private economy. It is, perhaps, no coincidence that this choice also appears likely to be the overriding issue in the presidential and congressional election campaign that starts formally two months from now, but is already underway in some preliminaries.

The Nation, in the coming months, thus will be exposed to two arenas of constitutional combat: the quiet, disciplined and even scholarly written and oral debate within the highest court, and the noisy, quite unruly and frequently emotional jousting within the political community. There very well may be an intersection of the two — late next June, when the Court is expected to announce its judgment about the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality.

(Read the whole thing at the “Analysis” link above)

Over at HotAir, Ed Morrissey notes:
(snip)

The timing is highly consequential. It means that Obama almost certainly won’t get a chance to name a new court member before the Supremes decide whether the Commerce Clause is an opening through which Congress can force any kind of regulation and mandate. If they end up supporting ObamaCare, Barack Obama will claim vindication for the next few months of the campaign for his re-election bid. If they strike it down, Obama loses his signature achievement and has to explain that for the next few months leading up to the election — and explaining is not winning.

Update: National Journal reports that the Supreme Court has requested that both sides address three questions in their submissions: the individual mandate, severability, and jurisdiction. This looks promising for opponents on first blush, as it focuses on just how much of the law a negative ruling would invalidate, and under what circumstances. The 11th Circuit ruled that the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law. Jurisdiction refers to standing in a suit against a law that has yet to take effect.

(Read the whole thing at the “HotAir” link above.)

‘Obamacare’ is a Liberty thief. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the ‘individual mandate’ portion of the law, where will congress stop…What will the end-game be, in terms of how many things the government will force We The People to purchase?

This is a landmark/water-shed case, having major implications on every citizen of this country. We The People MUST stay engaged, and involved, in the goings-on of our government. If we don’t — If we CHOOSE not to — it will be too late, the the promise of Liberty handed down to us from the Founders, will no longer exist. We will then, truly, deserve the government we will end up with.