5-4 Decision Affirms Obamacare

[brandon184]

Live blog of Supreme Court ruling on health care - This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Because the individual mandate has been upheld, and is essentially the funding behind everything else, this can be seen in large part as a major victory for President Obama, CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears said.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote in the decision, Kate Bolduan reports, joining Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

[thephilosophizer]

Change the title, it was a 6-3 on the mandate with Roberts joining.
This wasn't a split vote, no doubt now, the affordable care is going into full effect.

[sharder8]

Don't be too quick to celebrate . . . it still has one more hurdle to cross . . .

If Obama wins re-election in November, it will probably stand for at least 4 more years.
If Obama doesn't win re-election, it will probably be repealed rather quickly.

I guess you will need to wait to see the verdict in November.


Harder

[Beemer]

This is more than a feather in Obama's cap. This is a feather to be worn in the cap of all Americans.

Congratulations U.S.A.!

[Epidemic]

we will see.

well at least you progressive types will be able to tout the decreased costs. Could you please tell me when I will I see a change and how great will the price reduction be in 5 years?

[Theophylact]

Change the title, it was a 6-3 on the mandate with Roberts joining.
This wasn't a split vote, no doubt now, the affordable care is going into full effect.

No, it was 5-4. Roberts held that the mandate was invalid under the Commerce Clause but valid as an exercise of the taxing power. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer held that it would also have been valid under the Commerce Clause. The four dissenters held that the ACA was invalid in its entirety. (A part of the decision was unanimous, invalidating one aspect of the Medicaid extension.)

[MegalosSkylaki]

There is some irony in this decision in that its advocates argued that this was not a tax. However, its lawyers, out of an abundance of caution, argued for its Constitutionality not only under the Commerce clause wherein Congress can regulate interstate commerce but also under Congress power to tax. It was the latter power that SCOTUS upheld not the Commerce clause.
The law is Constitutional because of Congress’ unfettered ability to tax. It should be noted and probably will be by its opponents that in an earlier historic opinion, SCOTUS held that “the power to tax is the power to destroy”.

The essence of Roberts’s ruling was:
• “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote.
• “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.”
• But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”


The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

SEE>>> Supreme Court upholds health care law - NBC Politics


The Supreme Court did what it’s supposed to do under what is called the Principle of Statutory Construction: if it is at all possible to construct a law in some fashion as to render it Constitutional, SCOTUS must do so. Only when a law is entirely beyond the pale is a law to be declared Unconstitutional.

He said that Supreme Court precedent is that “every reasonable construction” of a law passed by Congress “must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”


This was the law that probably destroyed the Obama Administration by expending so much of its political capital so earlier in its existence. A wiser move would have been to wait for re-election and then push for an unpopular --or at least confusing--law like this that went on for some 1,500 pages.

It was credited with the loss of several Representatives seats and several Senators, control of the House and may have created conscious or unconscious animosity toward the President within his own Party as Nancy Pelosi had to go around and twist arms to get reluctant Democrats to vote for it.

Now it is declared Constitututional not becaused of Congress ability to regulate Commerce but because of Congress unfetterred ability to Tax. One can wonder as to the motives of some of the Justices in voting in favor of this Law.

MegalosSkyalki

[Chuckiechan]

Actually, the fight is just beginning. Now the election debate will shift to "It's really a good thing" when the nation is overwhelmingly against it.

It seems you can now be taxed for not eating your broccoli!

[Theophylact]

Actually, the fight is just beginning. Now the election debate will shift to "It's really a good thing" when the nation is overwhelmingly against it.

Actually, when you poll people on the individual provisions of the Affordable Care Act, they're overwhelmingly for them (with the exception of the mandate). It's just "Obamacare" they're against.

[mad1]

Actually, when you poll people on the individual provisions of the Affordable Care Act, they're overwhelmingly for them (with the exception of the mandate). It's just "Obamacare" they're against.

Link to poll data?

The last poll I looked at, two hours ago, show that a majority of the country was still in favor for the repeal of obamacare.

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

[MegalosSkylaki]

He said “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.”

He said the Supreme Court precedent is that “every reasonable construction” of a law passed by Congress “must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”

from>>>Supreme Court upholds health care law - NBC Politics


This is quintessential Judge Roberts weaseling to be the swing vote to get law declared Constitutional not on the basis of Congress power to regulate Commerce but on its power to Tax. This not a minor point.

Wait for the Election when the Republicans will doubtlessly argue "Repeal this Health Tax !" and may cite the Administrations own lawyers arguements that this law falls under the power to tax.

Pres. Obama would probably have been better off if the law was outright declared unconstitutional and let him off the hook [Edit] so his administration could move on to other things rather than have to defend a complex and costly law that can be painted in so many different ways. SCOTUS did not do his Administration--in an Election Year--any favors in coming out with this decision and Roberts was the one who crafted the "taxation" argument to"save" the law.

Ever hear the sayings, "With friends like this, I don't need any enemies" or "Don't do me any favors" ?

MegalosSkylaki

[Beemer]

A slight correction Doog.

"...the power to tax involves the power to destroy"

[thephilosophizer]

No, it was 5-4. Roberts held that the mandate was invalid under the Commerce Clause but valid as an exercise of the taxing power. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer held that it would also have been valid under the Commerce Clause. The four dissenters held that the ACA was invalid in its entirety. (A part of the decision was unanimous, invalidating one aspect of the Medicaid extension.)

My mistake. I was reading the news off the times and it seems likes they assumed that because Roberts wrote the majority that Kennedy was part of it. A rather interesting outcome that Kennedy was not part. I know that Roberts has generally had a predisposition towards narrow rulings, which does show here.
In terms of politics, it seems inevitable that because most people like most parts of the law (see the washington post for a good overview of polling on the act), that ultimately they will see that the law is in their best interests. And especially because the conservative chief justice wrote the opinion, it makes a hard case against activist judges. And yes, congress can try to repeal the act, but they would need a filibuster proof majority, and those odds are pretty darn long. Odds on getting a majority at all aren't great.
No the republican opposition will become a matter of beating a dead horse, as Americans grow more tired of bickering, and more desperate for economic help.

[Theophylact]

Pessimists are reading this decision as a major coup by Roberts in gutting the Commerce Clause.

[MegalosSkylaki]

I don't see it as gutting the Commerce clause as much as gutting the Obama Administration. But he let himself open to this by arguing from the Taxation clause.

If he had stuck with the Commerce clause and SCOTUS went with the power to Tax anyway, at least no one could then quote the Administration lawyers as the Administration had already argued the mandate and penalty was not a tax.

DOOG

[tony_j15]

A slight correction Doog.

"...the power to tax involves the power to destroy"

And even that can carry the implication that the destruction is somehow evil. We tax items like alcohol and tobacco more heavily than groceries because we are in effect attempting to control some of the behavior. This is destruction from an economical perspective if it prohibits a single sale.

Governments require taxes to run and uphold a functioning society, so the whole point is basically moot. It is only valid as a reminder of an ethical obligation.

Don't be too quick to celebrate . . . it still has one more hurdle to cross . . .

If Obama wins re-election in November, it will probably stand for at least 4 more years.
If Obama doesn't win re-election, it will probably be repealed rather quickly.

I guess you will need to wait to see the verdict in November.

I think that is the same bluster that the pro-life crowd used after Roe. Hasn't worked yet, has it?

well at least you progressive types will be able to tout the decreased costs. Could you please tell me when I will I see a change and how great will the price reduction be in 5 years?

Individuals likely will not see costs decrease. When we measure prices, we are doing it in terms of total healthcare consumed as a percentage of GDP. This is what has been said from the beginning. Don't try and make it out like you were promised a refund.

The last poll I looked at, two hours ago, show that a majority of the country was still in favor for the repeal of obamacare.

So you are in favor of denying children coverage? You are in favor of allowing companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?
These are the sorts of questions Theo is talking about. So of course the poll data you pulled up shows people are against "Obamacare" when they are questioned. That is exactly what Theo said.

I don't see it as gutting the Commerce clause as much as gutting the Obama Administration.

How does upholding a law pushed by the Obama Administration gut it?

[thephilosophizer]

Pessimists are reading this decision as a major coup by Roberts in gutting the Commerce Clause.

Eh. Commerce clause has a lot of precedent. But it also seems neither here nor there. Legislative action needs to be well justified, and if this means that the commerce clause doesn't mean the public can be compulsed into commerce, then so be it.
You could also read as saying that congress' power to tax is expanded. And now includes the ability to assign penalties for prescribed behavior. Can't say that's any better.

[MegalosSkylaki]

How does upholding a law pushed by the Obama Administration gut it?

I used the word "gut" as a reposte to Theo's use regarding the Commerce clase.

It is bad for the Obama Administaration because it says that the Healthcare Law is a Tax and that's why it's Constitututional. The Republicans will now say it's a bad tax.

Look at the vote breakdown: Four justices voted that it was Constitutioanl under the power to regulate commerce--the Commerce clause.

Roberts could have either joined that block making it Constitutional under the Commerce clause OR voted against it entirely which I believe would have probably done a favore to Pres. Obama as he wouldn't have to go into the Election having to defend this law but could simply say "the Court has spoken let's move on".

Instead, he casts a swing vote that makes it Constitutioanal under the power to Tax, arguing gee whiz, the Court has to go out of its way to find someway to construct a law to make it Constitutional. Where does that leave Obama?

The proud owner of a Taxation Bill?

[thephilosophizer]

This one is funny, the raft of people on twitter "moving to cananda" because the US is too socialist. rofl.

[tony_j15]

The proud owner of a Taxation Bill?

I'm sure he can spin it into a jobs bill.