Supreme Court upholds individual mandate in Obamacare

[ToddG]

from The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/235311-justices-back-health-mandate)

[JConn]

Words cannot express my disappointment. On a lesser note the stolen valor act was also struck down. Go buy your medals of honor while they're hot.

[ford.304]

The "tax" argument was always messy. Because the mandate was always constitutional as a tax, yet it was explicitly claimed not to be a tax during its passage. So what is considered a tax then? Is any civil penalty imaginable justified under the tax power now?

On the other hand, "go repass this exact bill, but call it a tax next time" seems kind of ridiculous as well...

[Kyle Reese]

Very disappointed is all I'll say.

[fuse]

Very surprised Roberts voted with the majority.

[bdcheung]

I'm not all that surprised. IF the mandate is found to be a tax, AND a party has standing to challenge the tax before having been subject to it, then the Court's opinion is valid.

Further, I'm pretty sure that the government's decision not to argue, either through their brief or in oral argument, that the individual mandate constitutes a tax does not preclude the Court from ruling that it is a tax. I'm not a Constitutional Law professor, but I did study conlaw in college, and from what I can remember, the Court is free to consider arguments not presented when reaching its decision.

[jrm]

feel free to delete

[GJM]

I don't like the law, but I am not that surprised for a few reasons:

1) The Chief Justice, on behalf of the SC, is concerned about the perception of the SC as being a non-partisan body.

2) The Chief Justice doesn't like judicial activism, and overturning Congress on a close call on this law would be viewed that way.

3) I believe the Chief Justice thinks it is the responsibility of Congress to sort out this mess.

[BaiHu]

Bad day for our country, but the math will sort it all out and it will be either a) the destruction of our country or b) the destruction of the middle class. Welcome to the Thunderdome.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[YVK]

This is a long discussion, but I am fully OK with the ruling, even though it (PPACA) is likely to make things worse.

[bdcheung]

I kept wondering how a financial penalty for not engaging in commerce could be reasonably defined as a tax. In reading the opinion, I see that it isn't technically a "tax" but a "penalty".

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may beupheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–
44.

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibilitypayment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35.

(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

[Josh Runkle]

Forgive my bluntness:

I think the supreme court simply didn't want the Obama administration to make them irrelevant. If they would've ruled against the mandate, he would've just done the same thing he did with Arizona. He has the political capital to make 1 and 1/2 of the 3 branches irrelevant, and they made decision that having the supreme court still be around in 10 years would be a good thing.

[Mark Housel]

I don't like the law, but I am not that surprised for a few reasons:

2) The Chief Justice doesn't like judicial activism, and overturning Congress on a close call on this law would be viewed that way.

3) I believe the Chief Justice thinks it is the responsibility of Congress to sort out this mess.

OH yeah, the law reeks to high heaven. I was not the least bit surprised by this.

I truly believe that they could discover that two pages of the couple thousand were stuck together, and when "Passed so we could see what's in it", found that it literally re-enacted Pre-Civil War slavery, and they would have still found the entire legislation to be Constitutional.
The system is just so rigged and corrupt that there was simply no way in hell it was going to be struck down.
But I'm an optimist at heart. :rolleyes:

This is not the typical definition of Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism is usually SCOTUS creating some new right or privilege out of whole cloth, so to speak.
Think "Right To Privacy" which is nowhere in the Constitution but was created to give women a "right" to an abortion. That's Judicial Activism, as opposed to striking down unconstitutional legislation.

Roberts also said something about it not being the job of SCOTUS to protect folks from the consequences of their voting decisions. True 'dat!

[ford.304]

I do wonder if this is going to help the republicans come fall. Losing is a strong motivator.

Of course, even if they took both houses, I'm not sure they'd actually have the cojones to repeal it. Government programs rarely get removed (see the Democrats and absolutely everything they complained about with Bush).

[BaiHu]

One of the biggest problems with the penalty, if I read this correctly, is that the penalty can be $95 or up to 1% of your income and then higher in 2016 to 2.5%, whichever is greater. Hey, taxman-EFF YOU!

Here it is from Wiki, although I've seen it elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Impose an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085.[23][82] Exemptions to the fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs are permitted.[23] On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that this penalty "must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance." According to the Supreme Court, Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to levy a penalty for remaining uninsured. However, Congress does have the power to levy a tax in this instance.

[Ray Keith]

I'm not all that surprised. IF the mandate is found to be a tax, AND a party has standing to challenge the tax before having been subject to it, then the Court's opinion is valid.

Further, I'm pretty sure that the government's decision not to argue, either through their brief or in oral argument, that the individual mandate constitutes a tax does not preclude the Court from ruling that it is a tax. I'm not a Constitutional Law professor, but I did study conlaw in college, and from what I can remember, the Court is free to consider arguments not presented when reaching its decision.

I believe they did argue this as their 3rd position. 1) Valid under the commerce clause; 2) Valid under necessary and proper and 3) Valid under taxing power.

[SamuelBLong]

I do wonder if this is going to help the republicans come fall. Losing is a strong motivator.

Two of my schlub friends just called to discuss the decision and confessed to me that they weren't registered to vote, and wanted to know how to get on the rolls.

Problem solved.

[Kyle Reese]

What "religious beliefs" exempt one from paying the fine? I'm genuinely curious.

[bdcheung]

What "religious beliefs" exempt one from paying the fine? I'm genuinely curious.

Christian Scientists, for one, don't believe in modern medicine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JodyH]

Welcome to European levels of taxation and unemployment.
Mediocrity for all (ruling class exempt of course).

[CMG]

What "religious beliefs" exempt one from paying the fine? I'm genuinely curious.

If I had to guess it would be Christian Scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science) or people with similar faiths.

[BaiHu]

Christian Scientists, for one, don't believe in modern medicine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

IIRC Muslims and Native Americans too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[GOP]

I'm not really saddened by the decision, it is Constitutional as a tax. I'm saddened by the passing of the bill and the fact that we have become a socialist state. I do think that Republican party just locked up the House and Senate, and Romney stands a better chance to win the Presidential election (though I unfortunately don't think he will).

[Al T.]

Interesting thoughts from an attorney buddy:

There's more going on here than meets the eye. Another game is being played that we're not really privy to. After reading, re-reading and re-reading the mandate section, I'm convinced no sane Consgressman could have drafted it expecting it to be upheld under the commerce clause (and indeed it was NOT upheld as a CC mandate.) I suspect the Dems constructed the mandate/penalty to be such an overreach of power that the Court would have to throw it out. And they timed the mandate to kick in well down the line--2014 IIRC. But at the same time they gave everyone the goodies like no preexisting bans and extended child coverage right away.

Behind closed doors, the dem leadership has NO desire to actually see what happens when hundreds of millions of Americans who already can't afford or can BARELY afford basic health care get ginormous bills for ACA mandated coverage. The monthly premiums could end up being the most expensive cost other than housing for most families. There is ZERO incentive under the current Obamacare for any carrier to lower premiums or any hospital to reduce costs. They now have a captive market being forced to pay.

What the Dems who wrote this really wanted was for the big bad conservatives to take away everyone's candy by pulling the bill's heart-plug and watching it bleed to death. Instead, Roberts rewrote the thing for them, declared that it really was a tax, and tossed it right back in their laps.

Either that or Roberts has decided he's really a liberal at heart. Personally I kinda doubt that.

Quote:

Again I'm still struggling with how this is a tax and not a penalty.

Because it's been rewritten by CJ Roberts, by fiat. All the while telling us how the Court isn't going to replace the Congress! LOL

The dinglefools praising Obama in the streets actually think all of this is free. The reality is very different. Trillions in future bills and invoices are mustering like a vast army, preparing to march towards every individual, employer and state government. And we have no way of making those payments. None. The feds, meanwhile, have undertaken to pay for astronomical Medicaid hikes which they also have no way of paying short of incurring more debt. The economy remains locked a slow death spiral and the added burden of the ACA will be another incentive not to hire people and not to consume goods.

The best thing that can happen at this point is for Obama to win reelection and for the Dems to be the ones presiding over the collapse that's coming. This will accelerate it.

As far as the taxation power, I hate to break it to you but the feds have been able to tax you for ANYTHING or NOTHING for many generations now. They can tax everyone 10% more then give a 10% break to those who have SUV's, don't have SUV's, have bicycles, buy yachts or ANYTHING ELSE. The internal revenue code is full of thousands of pages of these kinds of carrot/stick approaches. Now, we all know that's not how this law was drafted. The Dems denied all along it was a tax. And it was NOT written as a tax but a clear mandate with a penalty in the form of a special hike in taxes.

But because of Roberts, no precedent has been set. Roberts just took his pen, made part B into part A and part A into Part B, read the penalty as the main law and the mandate as a subpart of the penalty, called the whole new thing a tax law and walked away laughing.

[TCinVA]

I don't like the law, but I am not that surprised for a few reasons:

1) The Chief Justice, on behalf of the SC, is concerned about the perception of the SC as being a non-partisan body.

2) The Chief Justice doesn't like judicial activism, and overturning Congress on a close call on this law would be viewed that way.

3) I believe the Chief Justice thinks it is the responsibility of Congress to sort out this mess.

Then the chief justice is a massive idiot who didn't pay attention to what happened the last time the court "switched in time to save nine!" and became a rubber stamp for FDR's big state bull****.

[BaiHu]

Interesting note, Al T., it squares with the collective thoughts of those I talk about this type of stuff daily.

Roberts basically said, sure, it's constitutional as a tax, now good luck getting funding.

It also squares, if it was politically motivated, why Kennedy leaned on the conservative side.

Quite a sadistic chess game where we the people are always the one holding left 'the bag'.

[fuse]

Interesting thoughts from an attorney buddy:

There's more going on here than meets the eye. Another game is being played that we're not really privy to. After reading, re-reading and re-reading the mandate section, I'm convinced no sane Consgressman could have drafted it expecting it to be upheld under the commerce clause (and indeed it was NOT upheld as a CC mandate.) I suspect the Dems constructed the mandate/penalty to be such an overreach of power that the Court would have to throw it out. And they timed the mandate to kick in well down the line--2014 IIRC. But at the same time they gave everyone the goodies like no preexisting bans and extended child coverage right away.

Behind closed doors, the dem leadership has NO desire to actually see what happens when hundreds of millions of Americans who already can't afford or can BARELY afford basic health care get ginormous bills for ACA mandated coverage. The monthly premiums could end up being the most expensive cost other than housing for most families. There is ZERO incentive under the current Obamacare for any carrier to lower premiums or any hospital to reduce costs. They now have a captive market being forced to pay.

What the Dems who wrote this really wanted was for the big bad conservatives to take away everyone's candy by pulling the bill's heart-plug and watching it bleed to death. Instead, Roberts rewrote the thing for them, declared that it really was a tax, and tossed it right back in their laps.

Either that or Roberts has decided he's really a liberal at heart. Personally I kinda doubt that.

Quote:

Because it's been rewritten by CJ Roberts, by fiat. All the while telling us how the Court isn't going to replace the Congress! LOL

The dinglefools praising Obama in the streets actually think all of this is free. The reality is very different. Trillions in future bills and invoices are mustering like a vast army, preparing to march towards every individual, employer and state government. And we have no way of making those payments. None. The feds, meanwhile, have undertaken to pay for astronomical Medicaid hikes which they also have no way of paying short of incurring more debt. The economy remains locked a slow death spiral and the added burden of the ACA will be another incentive not to hire people and not to consume goods.

The best thing that can happen at this point is for Obama to win reelection and for the Dems to be the ones presiding over the collapse that's coming. This will accelerate it.

As far as the taxation power, I hate to break it to you but the feds have been able to tax you for ANYTHING or NOTHING for many generations now. They can tax everyone 10% more then give a 10% break to those who have SUV's, don't have SUV's, have bicycles, buy yachts or ANYTHING ELSE. The internal revenue code is full of thousands of pages of these kinds of carrot/stick approaches. Now, we all know that's not how this law was drafted. The Dems denied all along it was a tax. And it was NOT written as a tax but a clear mandate with a penalty in the form of a special hike in taxes.

But because of Roberts, no precedent has been set. Roberts just took his pen, made part B into part A and part A into Part B, read the penalty as the main law and the mandate as a subpart of the penalty, called the whole new thing a tax law and walked away laughing.

Cool post.

I like the idea of Roberts being a massive troll.

In fact I think I'll choose to believe this reality, as I find it comforting.

[TCinVA]

Folks, if the chief justice of the supreme court set precedent solely on the basis of short term political strategy then he's a traitor to his oath. Given how often the notion of the Constitution as a meaningful limit on federal power has been betrayed by some yahoo, I find it far easier to believe that Roberts just decided to stick with the trend of Leviathan state over doing his actual job. Trying to come up with ways in which this move is some sort of brilliant strategy seems to me like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

[BaiHu]

Folks, if the chief justice of the supreme court set precedent solely on the basis of short term political strategy then he's a traitor to his oath. Given how often the notion of the Constitution as a meaningful limit on federal power has been betrayed by some yahoo, I find it far easier to believe that Roberts just decided to stick with the trend of Leviathan state over doing his actual job. Trying to come up with ways in which this move is some sort of brilliant strategy seems to me like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Blood comes from turnips? :confused:

Sorry if that came off smug or flippant; I share your frustration, but I also share everyone's desire to look for a silver lining here.

If there isn't a silver lining here, then we truly are watching the beginning of the end of our country and the world as we know it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[bdcheung]

I find it far easier to believe that Roberts just decided to stick with the trend of Leviathan state over doing his actual job.

I'd like to hear your points on how Chief Justice Roberts failed to do his job. Full text of his opinion can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/29healthcare-scotus-docs.html; The Chief Justice's published opinion begins on Page 7.

[Robert Mitchum]

Trying to find a Silver Lining
liberalism is a mental disorder
...maybe Obama care can find a cure .....

[mnealtx]

Here's a couple of rays of sunlight - it absolutely *GUTS* the Commerce clause interpretation and says that Fed.gov can't penalize the states for not going along with O-care. It also seems to leave the door cracked to further challenges on the tax issue.

To that, add the political capital just given to conservatives with the decision. All Obama's claims of 'it's not a tax' and 'your taxes won't go up one dime' just went *right* out the window. 1.7 *trillion* dollars in taxes over the next 10 years...primarily on the back of the middle class.

[Spr1]

Folks, if the chief justice of the supreme court set precedent solely on the basis of short term political strategy then he's a traitor to his oath. Given how often the notion of the Constitution as a meaningful limit on federal power has been betrayed by some yahoo, I find it far easier to believe that Roberts just decided to stick with the trend of Leviathan state over doing his actual job. Trying to come up with ways in which this move is some sort of brilliant strategy seems to me like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

I agree. Roberts Lost his nerve.

[mnealtx]

Some good commentary from Krauthammer, here (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304332/why-roberts-did-it-charles-krauthammer).

Pull quote - remainder at link:

"National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the Court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan Court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf."

[BaiHu]

Excellent piece by Krauthammer. Thanks for passing it along.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[fixer]

Scary precedent being set here if you ask me. Now it seems any administration's pet project can be codified into law, with penalties for non-compliance, and the courts can call the penalty a tax, and poof all is good.

And why is the Chief Justice even remarking on what is or isn't affordable (" The penalty isn't so steep...")?

Is the next Cause Du Jour Homelessness?

This law was upheld by a thin margin on what appears to be frikkin semantics. Not good.

[TCinVA]

I'd like to hear your points on how Chief Justice Roberts failed to do his job.

I don't see how "imposing" a limit on federal power that he made completely theoretical by re-writing the legislation is within the boundaries of his job.

Krauthammer and co are trying to polish a turd.

If Roberts really was so obsessed with keeping yahoos like E.J. Dionne from saying mean things about the court that he searched for a way, no matter how tortured and illogical, to make an unacceptable law acceptable, then he's dumber than his argument appears. The court's primary mission in existing is not to protect it's own reputation. It's to protect us from this. If he got weak in the knees because our own little American Napoleon wagged his finger at them during a state of the union address then he's an idiot.

[bdcheung]

Now it seems any administration's pet project can be codified into law

Obama didn't pass this bill all on his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BaiHu]

If you haven't had time to read it all through, here are some good highlights:

http://www.businessinsider.com/details-from-the-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-2012-6?op=1

[Ray Keith]

There is no good side to this contrary to what Krauthammer and Will try to spin.

There is simply no constitutional authority for this tax even if you accept the giggle that it is a tax. The taxing power of Congress is clearly stated, this "tax" fails in every category. Roberts addresses this by simply saying the 4 dissenters are just playing label games. That is what he has reduced your constitution to, label games. In his opinion, he manages the feat of saying that the penalty provision is not a tax for purposes of it surviving the anti-injuction attack and then in mere pages, turns around and says that it is a tax, saving the law under congressional taxing power. Roberts managed to simply ignore the fact that there is no authority for this tax. The four leftists who are more than happy to agree for the time being to get the result are at least intellectually honest in that they say this law is within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Roberts was just a useful idiot for the moment to salvage the law under a patently ridiculous rationale.

Roberts opinion also will come back to haunt, when the fertile taxing minds legislators explore the new and abundant ways to tax the inactivity of the citizenry. The scope and reach of that boggles the mind. Roberts has set an outrageous precedent with this new "taxing" power he has made up and given to Congress.

When you read that Roberts somehow lead a conservative victory for "constraining the commerce clause", that is total Barbara Streisand. A "constraint" on commerce clause power was there before him, 4 justices said the statute was wholly invalid, if Roberts joined them, that would have been a limit, however rare, on commerce clause power. When 1 of the 4 dissenters is replaced with a justice like the 4 leftists, this law will be valid under the commerce clause for which those of that ilk see no limit. So you will then be left with an enormous new taxing power for Congress, which the liberal wing of the court will gladly accept, and no "limit" on commerce clause power.

The Constitution has become a joke, and that applies to those other amendments too, like the 4th.

[BaiHu]

If Roberts is a total idiot, then we're all screwed and this discussion doesn't matter, b/c we won't be able to use the internet, b/c it's bad for our eyes and that raises the cost of healthcare.

However, if Roberts is an idiot savant or an evil genius, what he just did was make every citizen very aware that their vote counts this November.

In short-I won't be here forever to kryptonite people like Super-O, folks; so you better collectively end this train wreck of self-destructive voting behaviors.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

In short-I won't be here forever to kryptonite people like Super-O, folks; so you better collectively end this train wreck of self-destructive voting behaviors.

No.

We're screwed.

We're screwed...

Personally, I don't like what he did; however, he is right in that it's not the court's job to save the country from political stupidity.

If people want to change what is going on, they need to do it themselves.

It's the job of the court to say if the government does or does not have the authority to do this. He said it does, under the taxing and spending power of congress.

Fine.

The whole "Should" issue is for the political system to decide.

If people really want to get this done, they will do it.

They will participate in the political process, campaign, vote, take people to the polls and whatever to get it done.

If people are just gonna "like" stuff on facebook, do online petitions, and not actively work to get rid of this monstrosity, they must not hate it that much.

What are you gonna do?

Who's planning on taking a few hours on election day to shuttle some people to the polls so they can vote?

If you can't do that, who's gonna chip in $20 for gas, pizza and soda for the guys doing the driving?

Anyone gonna make some phone calls to people to remind them to vote, or put voter registration forms in people's hands so that they can actually vote?

Anyone gonna help people get a checklist of needed ID documents together so the people don't get turned away from the polls?

We can cry all we want to...it remains to be seen what we are going to do.

[BaiHu]

No.

We're screwed.

We're screwed...

Personally, I don't like what he did; however, he is right in that it's not the court's job to save the country from political stupidity.

If people want to change what is going on, they need to do it themselves.

It's the job of the court to say if the government does or does not have the authority to do this. He said it does, under the taxing and spending power of congress.

Fine.

The whole "Should" issue is for the political system to decide.

If people really want to get this done, they will do him.

They will participate in the political process, campaign, vote, take people to the polls and whatever to get it done.

If people are just gonna "like" stuff on facebook, do online petitions, and not actively work to get rid of this monstrosity, they must not hate it that much.

What are you gonna do?

Who's planning on taking a few hours on election day to shuttle some people to the polls so they can vote?

If you can't do that, who's gonna chip in $20 for gas, pizza and soda for the guys doing the driving?

Anyone gonna make some phone calls to people to remind them to vote, or put voter registration forms in people's hands so that they can actually vote?

Anyone gonna help people get a checklist of needed ID documents together so the people don't get turned away from the polls?

We can cry all we want to...it remains to be seen what we are going to do.

Mitchell,

Honestly, are you being facetious in the "we're screwed" part?
Personally, I have a tight group outside of PF that discusses all of these topics every week. We email our thoughts about all the political/economic doings of our society. We have some harsh debates coming from the left to the right to the Euro-centric and we have a lawyer to settle us down. We, at PF and my own personal group are actively 'turned on'. We might not always be right, but we are motivated even if we're pig-headed or 'wrong' in our understanding of conlaw.

Logically, I think everyone here disagrees with the sentiment that this judgement has thrust upon its citizenry. However, disagreeing with it's 'legal' ruling is something obviously even other supreme court justices can't agree on.

That being said, most of us aren't conlaw grads, but most of us also have enough brain cells to rub together in order to recognize when we've just been had...possibly.

As the old proverbial tale goes:
One day a bird is too cold to make it south.
He sees a barn and lands inside.
He's freezing and looking for a warm place when a cow shits on him.
At first he's pissed, but then he realizes the warmth has just saved him.
Then it hardens and he's pissed it's basically paralyzed him.
Along comes a fox and plucks him out and he's happy until he's promptly tossed into the mouth of the fox and he's dead.

The moral of the story: Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy. (Roberts?) Not everyone who gets you out of the shit, is your friend. (Obama?)

[mnealtx]

More good commentary here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html):


But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.

Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress’ commerce powers. Right now, liberals are seemingly too busy celebrating their win, and conservatives bemoaning their loss, to realize the significance of this.

None of the liberals’ previous arguments about the upshot of such a ruling are rendered invalid simply because the chief justice decided that this was a tax (and almost everyone agreed that if Congress had just called it a tax, it would have been constitutional). The court just constricted its Commerce Clause jurisprudence; if liberal commentators are correct, they did so by a lot. It doesn’t matter today, but 10 years from now, it will probably be a different story.

The most important aspect of the ruling, however, comes with respect to the spending clause. Seven justices just agreed to real limits on Congress’ ability to attach strings to legislation. This is significant. Until today, these limits were hypothetical, and it was believed that Congress could, for example, remove all Medicaid funding as a punishment for a state’s refusal to comply with the Medicaid expansion.

And some good stuff from RedState, here (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/).

With this decision, several legs are kicked out from under the Democrat's campaign platform:
1. "Help us elect non-partisan judges/balance the activist SC" - out of play
2. "Help us save Obamacare" - out of play
3. The decision puts the issue back in play as 'repeal in full' instead of fragmented if they'd ruled against the mandate, so the 'Lots of people like parts of Obamacare' is - out of play.
4. As a *tax* issue and not a Commerce Clause issue, repeal is 51 votes under reconciliation, not 60.
BONUS. LOTS of ammo for the Republican on the 1.7 trillion dollar "Obamatax" and lying about taxes being raised on the working class.

For people whose only focus was defeating Obamacare, it's a loss. For anyone that was concerned with the ever-increasing intrusion of fed.gov into their lives, it was a win - and a big one.

And, regarding the comments above about 'saving people from their political decision'.... that's absolutely right. Conservatives have counted on the Court to rescue them from Congress instead of demanding that their representative do his/her job.

[TCinVA]

For anyone that was concerned with the ever-increasing intrusion of fed.gov into their lives, it was a win - and a big one.

Maybe...one day...tomorrow...

Sorry. I have a hard time buying the idea that it'll be a great decision one day when we're screwed today. If the Constitutional interpretation isn't sufficiently robust to stop this usurpation, exactly how hideous does the attempt have to be before it's big enough to actually make the court do something about it?



And, regarding the comments above about 'saving people from their political decision'.... that's absolutely right. Conservatives have counted on the Court to rescue them from Congress instead of demanding that their representative do his/her job.

That's balderdash.

The court's job is to enforce meaningful limits on federal power in the interest of preserving the rights of individuals even if somebody does manage to get a majority of the votes to do something awful to them. That Roberts made such an outlandish statement is insulting. It's bad enough to screw me over, but don't lecture me while you're doing it, Mr. Chief Justice.

[mnealtx]

Maybe...one day...tomorrow...

Sorry. I have a hard time buying the idea that it'll be a great decision one day when we're screwed today. If the Constitutional interpretation isn't sufficiently robust to stop this usurpation, exactly how hideous does the attempt have to be before it's big enough to actually make the court do something about it?



That's balderdash.

You're right - it would have so *much* better for them to have overturned the mandate, so that the Dem Congress could re-do it before the election and have it in a form that couldn't be fought any further. </sarc>


The court's job is to enforce meaningful limits on federal power in the interest of preserving the rights of individuals even if somebody does manage to get a majority of the votes to do something awful to them.

Like pulling back the abuse of the Commerce Clause?

Like pulling back the practice of penalizing States for not going along with Congress?


That Roberts made such an outlandish statement is insulting. It's bad enough to screw me over, but don't lecture me while you're doing it, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ok, we'll put you down in the 'people whose only focus was defeating Obamacare' column, then.

[TCinVA]

Like pulling back the abuse of the Commerce Clause?


...and then renaming that abuse a "tax" and declaring it to be perfectly OK. Yeah. Real meaningful limit, there!



Like pulling back the practice of penalizing States for not going along with Congress?


If I remember correctly, that bit was 7-2 against, with only the two biggest nuts on the court voting to support that behavior.



Ok, we'll put you down in the 'people whose only focus was defeating Obamacare' column, then.

My focus is very simple: If they can do this, what in God's name can't they do?

Robert's opinion said that they can't do what they originally intended...but by gum if they work on the marketing and wording a bit, they certainly can do it! So I fail to see how a new bulwark against an ever more intrusive and abusive federal power has been erected with this decision.

[ToddG]

The court's job is to enforce meaningful limits on federal power in the interest of preserving the rights of individuals even if somebody does manage to get a majority of the votes to do something awful to them.

No, it is not the Court's job to "enforce meaningful limits." The Court's job in this case is to interpret the Constitutionality of a law. And the Court did that. You may not like the interpretation, but a lot of people didn't like the interpretation in Heller and McDonald, too.

A majority put a landmark halt on the expansion of the Commerce Clause, and an even bigger majority announced a huge limitation on federal extortion of state governments. Those are major Constitutional issues. Tax power is a Constitutional issue. Health care isn't. The law never should have been passed, and the way it was serpentined through the legislative process was disgraceful (and in violation of Congress's own rules). "Bad" does not always necessarily mean "unconstitutional," though.

I wish the individual mandate got overturned, too. I wish the whole bill had been invalidated in the stroke of a pen. I tend to adhere pretty strongly to the judicial viewpoint of Scalia and Thomas on just about any issue, and I certainly agree with them here.

But -- and this is not directed at you, TC, or anyone in particular -- it's difficult for me to see the number of people who hail Roberts as a Constitutional genius one day for his RKBA decision, then decry him a mental midget with no understanding of the Constitution the next because of his decision here. If reading about the Constitution online or taking a 3-credit class in college or even graduating law school was enough to grant the expertise necessary to be a Supreme then SCOTUS wouldn't be much of an authority, would it?

I will say this, though. For all the folks who argue this was a master political stroke on Roberts's part, I hope you're wrong. I'd much rather have every Justice issue an honest, objective analysis of the Constitution without concern over politics than have a Supreme Court decision manipulated in an attempt to influence elections.

[jrm]

You're right - it would have so *much* better for them to have overturned the mandate, so that the Dem Congress could re-do it before the election and have it in a form that couldn't be fought any further. </sarc>


Maybe I am misunderstanding the sarcasm but the House has a Republican majority. Anything could happen but I don't think Obamacare 2.0 would pass the House before the election.

[bdcheung]

Robert's opinion said that they can't do what they originally intended...but by gum if they work on the marketing and wording a bit, they certainly can do it! So I fail to see how a new bulwark against an ever more intrusive and abusive federal power has been erected with this decision.

Statements like these indicate you may not have actually read the text of the opinion.

Roberts states that the Government defended the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate on two fronts: the commerce clause (which was overturned), and Congress's enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, which you've seemingly ignored but was the argument upon which the Individual Mandate was upheld.

[TCinVA]

I've read the decision. I've also read the dissents. I'm not alone in seeing the "tax" argument as a desperate contrivance the administration...who just today stated again in the press that the individual mandate is not a tax...to try and save a ridiculous bit of legislation from the axe.

[bdcheung]

I've read the decision. I've also read the dissents. I'm not alone in seeing the "tax" argument as a desperate contrivance the administration...who just today stated again in the press that the individual mandate is not a tax...to try and save a ridiculous bit of legislation from the axe.

The administration can say whatever it wants for political purposes (Democrats can't afford to look like they're raising taxes in an election year) but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and floats like a duck, then it's a duck.

Furthermore, the Solicitor General did, in fact, argue that the PPACA's individual mandate could be applied under Congress's power to levy taxes. It was the third justification he provided for the mandate, the first two being the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, respectively. So Roberts didn't pull this out of thin air, either.

With respect to the Court's decision, it doesn't matter what Obama and his administration has said, says now, or will say, to the media; all that matters are the arguments presented in the briefs and oral arguments.

[mnealtx]

More commentary at SCOTUSBLOG (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/a-marbury-for-our-time/) (more at the link):


At the same time, the Chief Justice established some important, conservative doctrinal beachheads. He reaffirmed or established (depending on your perspective) some potentially important limits on Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause. Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to regulate commerce in a manner that compels people into commerce; it can only regulate existing commerce. Further, such regulation, even if “necessary,” can never be “proper,” no matter its importance to the proper functioning of a broader regulatory scheme. And the General Welfare Clause does not permit Congress to use the states’ dependence on an existing conditional spending program as a means to forcing them to accept significant, qualitative changes to that program. Rather, states must be given the choice to accept or deny the funds associated only with the program’s modifications—at least when the program is similar in size to Medicaid.