**UPDATED**
“Chief Justice Roberts’ vote saved the ACA.” – SCOTUSBLOG
Chief Justice John Roberts
“I do think the court will surprise a lot of people when it probably upholds the Affordable Care Act in an opinion written by another former student of mine, Chief Justice Roberts this Thursday… You can be deeply conservative and still believe that the Affordable Care Act is completely consistent with the United States Constitution.” – Lawrence Tribe [on MSNBC days prior to decision]
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, writing for the majority for the Supreme Court, has upheld the Affordability Care Act through, not through the Commerce Clause, but through the act of taxing. In other words, if you aren’t in commerce, already having health insurance, “you can’t be dragged in,” as Pete Williams analyzed. So, in 2014, how many people will voluntarily choose to buy health care, because it’s unlikely people will be sought out and taxed because they don’t have it?
However, the mandate being upheld under the taxing power means there will be power under the penalty.
Lyle [of SCOTUSBLOG]: The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition. [..] Lyle: Interesting, at least to scholars, that while the mandate and its attached penalty are a tax for purposes of its constitutionality, but not for the Anti-Injunction Act. If it were a tax for AIA purposes, this case would not have been decided re the mandate.
A breathless Pete Williams of NBC News delivered the news, later saying it is a “plurality opinion.” On Medicaid, the Court rejects its mandatory expansion, according to Williams and a SCOTUSBLOG expert. That is, the federal government can give the money to the state, but they don’t have to utilize it and if they don’t HHS can’t pull the money.
The main dissent was predictably written by Justice Scalia, but the report is that it’s “cordial.”
The incentives in the law, also known as the punishments, have evidently been taken out of ACA. So, how will this work? That’s the biggest question of all.
Ironically, Sen. Obama voted against the confirmation of John Roberts.
Politically speaking, Chief Justice Roberts has done a very important thing today for the Supreme Court. After Bush v. Gore, then Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s very credibility was on the line. Roberts being a Republican, who clearly would have struck down Obamacare if he legally believed it should be, has come down on the side of righting the trajectory of the legacy of the Supreme Court, which under Justice Rehnquist was leveled to the dirt.
Most importantly, Chief Justice John Roberts has delivered legitimacy to the Affordability Care Act.
Pres. Obama now has a place in history on an issue where other presidents over fifty years have failed. It is another social construct lift that rivals F.D.R. and Lyndon Johnson’s accomplishments, regardless of the many faults of Obamacare, of which the list is long.
First Lady Michelle Obama has always contended Barack Obama was meant to do big things. For these two people, the first African American presidency, living in the White House, which was built by slaves, it’s simply got to be the moment of their lives and one in which Mrs. Obama always believed Barack Obama was destined to deliver.
Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form. – Lyle Deniston of SCOTUSBLOG
Roberts caricature via Shutterstock
So has been stated: …that a group of unelecteds ruling by fiat…. still apply?
You simply do not understand how our system of government works do you?
I think I do know how our government works (or doesn’t, some of the time) so let me see if I pass your test.
The legislature makes laws. The executive branch administers and interprets them, and enforces to the best of its ability given the constraints of budget, staffing, and political favors to be paid back in one way or another.
The courts rule on whether the laws are constitutional, whether or not those laws are poorly conceived and/or unpopular (the legislature’s concern), poorly enforced or administered (the exec branch’s concern), or just plain too complicated and goofy for most people to understand.
The WAY the Supreme Court may chose to rule is significant. Sometimes the hidden message is: This thing stinks , you should have been able to do better, and you didn’t do a good job of defending it in your arguments. But we can see a way to interpret what you said differently than you said it, and thereby we can convince ourselves it’s constitutionally okay. So, have at it in the next election and we’ll be interested in that outcome. Maybe the citizens will send a message to legislators that they’d like something a little bit different before 2014 rolls around.
It reads better this way: “The courts rule on whether the laws are constitutional, even if those laws are poorly conceived …. etc..”
Your comment is confused to say the least! There are three branches of government in this country! The legislative branch that passes laws by legislators elected by the people(congress), the executive branch that enforces the laws (headed up by the President) and the judicial branch(SCOTUS) that determines whether a law passes constitutional muster! Like I said your comment was confused and muddled but you got there, eventually!
Of course I have an understanding of how government works. what I stated: …that a group of unelecteds ruling by fiat… was a comment made by others when it was assumed that the Supreme Court was going the other way. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Ok got ya!
Speechless… was genuinely expecting the worst. But I am really really glad.
Now that the insurance companies have been bailed out, it would be great if the goverment would finally make a serious attempt at controlling health care costs.
you’re joking right? the government controlling healthcare costs??????? They can’t control any costs!!!
The United States is now a socialist country.
Yeah…..ain’t it cool!
Either you and sasha have no idea what the word “Socialism” is, or you were so eager to crow that you didn’t bother to read what sasha wrote. The idea that Obamacare is a move toward Socialism is about as nonsensical as the idea that it creates Death Panels.
Your reading comprehension needs some work! Sasha was being ignorant and Sec was being sarcastic!
Hey Solo, how about calling it general welfare…queen.
It’s not productive for anyone on the left to agree that Obamacare is Socialism, sarcastically or otherwise- first, it’s NOT Socialism, second, it suggests that something bad just happened, “we” won, “they” lost, and we are rubbing it in. Not constructive, on any level.
“It’s not productive for anyone on the left to agree that Obamacare is Socialism, sarcastically or otherwise- first, it’s NOT Socialism, second, it suggests that something bad just happened, “we” won, “they” lost, and we are rubbing it in. Not constructive, on any level.”
Well THANK YOU for being the be all, end all authoritative voice on what is or is not productive or constructive on any level!!!
We were so lost untill you came around to set us straight!!
Maybe cool for you, but not me.
I plan to run for office so my family and I will be exempt from this caca.
You know I love you right? I live for our periodic playful banter!
oh hush Solo, and concentrate on spiking your football.
Spiking the ball? Ok I can live with that characterization. Considering what President Obama and his supporters had to endure to get this far can u blame him or us if we did spike the ball? Now we move on to plugging the holes in the law and expanding it to include the 30 million it doesn’t currently include!
Go for it!!
Ah, bad hair day for you. Good day for the rest of us.
It’s only a bad day for the citizenry. By the rest of us, you must be meaning Health Insurance and Drug Company executives.
Yeah, ESPECIALLY all those folks with pre-existing conditions that COULDN’T get healthcare unless they were rich, just AWFUL for them to be able to see a Dr no isn’t it?
Pashaw! We could only wish.
If by socialist you mean corporate welfare, robbing the poor and middle-class to line the pockets of health insurance company CEOs, then I agree with you.
Actually, I am not surprised and my gut was telling me all along that the corporation-friendly Supreme Court was going to do this. I kept scratching my head wondering why supporters of Obamacare kept wringing their hands over this one.
The mandate is very insurance-business friendly. What is not to love about a tax that makes you buy a product, especially one where the corporation will probably find every loophole it can to not cough up coverage when it can?
Many in Congress (Repubs and Dems) don’t want to raise taxes on the wealthy but they sure as heck don’t have a problem sticking the average schmuck with an expensive health care tax when most people in this country are already having trouble making ends meet.
Welcome to the United States for America, brought to you by Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, etc., etc., etc…..
Ain’t it GRAND?!?
Well some of my conservative and Republican buddies have already e-mailed and text’d me with some of the most wonderfully colorful “end of the union” proclamations. AND some of my liberal and Democratic buddies are praising the almighty Luck Dragon for the SCOTUS decision.
My take: eh…. Honestly I really don’t have a big reaction. I do agree with you Taylor that the Obamas’ are probably euphoric right now. But I want to see this IN PRACTICE before I throw down my homemade vanilla ice cream for the happy dance.
Agreed. The more I read, the more the ruling is pretty confusing, and everybody is picking it apart. From Larry Johnson (I don’t always agree with him, but I believe his opinion is closer to mine on this one):
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/68719/finally-the-scotus-ruling-on-obamacare/#more-68719
I don’t know about you, but I am trying to decide which corporate LOGO to have tatooed on my butt, since the corporations own everything now, including people, my friends…oh, wait, but corporations are people my friends…so we have people owning people….Whatever….just write a check and send it in…or better yet…just give your bank account information to Wall Street and they will take care of losing your money for you…if you are lucky, they might send you a used cardboard box to live out of. At least you will have affordable health care…maybe….
I think going with a diorama of all Fortune 1000 corporations’ logos tattooed to my entire body would be awesome! I’ll be The Illustrated Man for the 21st century…. And not just because of the tattoos.
T-Steel–I wish Taylor had a “Like” or “Applaud” button…
T-Steel ~Don’t you think that our congress critters should be required to do this.
This also works out well for illegal aliens.
I am sure that this ruling along with other recent rulings we will see an increase in boarder crossings. Free health care and they don’t have to pay into the now well funded system, entitlement programs galore, and they can send their under the table earnings back home to Mexico…
If I were Mexican I would pack my bag today…
Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if you packed your bag today myself. Your completely pulled outta yer kiester, unsupported by any facts or data pronouncements will be sorely missed…NOT.
And don’t worry bout “if I were Mexican” Mexicans have FAR to much class for you to ever have to be worried about being mistaken for one.
Oooooh, the big bad boogie man ” illegal aliens”. Wing nut heads will explode, it will rain cats and dogs, the world as we know it will be coming to an end. Grow up will ya, take the time to read and learn the facts instead of mouthing faux news BS and right wing fear tactics.
@ sec, please tell that to the very real gang members out here in Cali…
@ angels, I live the facts. My overly entitled state is teetering on bankruptcy. At the rate things are going I will soon just work to pay taxes.
fyi to you both, contrary to popular belief, I don’t need Fox for *ish. That is such a weak and tired argument.
Yeah, worry bout those gang members…not those bank CEOs…IT’S THE MEXICANS who crashed the economy!!!!
Well then you would be a foolish Mexican considering that their economy is doing better than ours. I just read recently that illegal boarder crossings are at a standstill.
Just out of curiosity Sasha do you know which is the second largeest group of illegals in the US?
It is the Irish…do you have the same problems with them?
Of course she doesn’t, There white.
My experiences with white people in California is that they tend not to be racist, except maybe Gwyneth Paltrow, however she has relocated. Bish.
Mexican gang members do not like Black people.
Fact.
When I was living in Chicago and New York my experiences were different.
I saw video on the local news this week of illegals crossing the boarder in June. They are still coming.
HEY angels “My experiences with white people in California is that they tend not to be racist,” SEE!!! If everyone just had the good sense to be born WHITE everything would be FINE!!!!!
It was always thus ladywalker…it originated at the AEI after all and It was first implemented buy none other than the Mittster. Every time he rails against it he looks so false.
Thanks, Lake Lady! I just checked it out, and AEI has a logo that is just large enough to cover my posterior.
Ha!
Thanks for all the comments (and emails).
Please continue to weigh in! I’m fascinated to hear what you all think.
Adding, I can hardly wait until Jon Stewart gives us his take on CNN and Faux News coverage, which got it exactly wrong at first!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cnn-supreme-court-health-care-individual-mandate_n_1633950.html
This is the starting point, the ACA is now in place and modifcations and improvements can be made over time. We now have in place the same universal healthcare systyem as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, A near universal health care system managed by private health care insurance companies with strict government regulations over the health insurance companies pricing mechaisms, the denial of health insurnce companies practices of reclusion, dropping sick people or excluding people with pre-existing conditions and the mandate that health insurance companies have to pay 87% of its premium in paying for actual medical costs and refunding to the policy holders premium overcharges that do not pay 87% of its premium income in medical costs.
You have to remember that the Social Security Act of 1935 was extremely flawed in that it was written ro exclude most African American and agricultural workers from particpating but those injustices were removed over time.
Its a start and eventualy might include over time increasing access to a ‘Medicar for All’ modifications.
Had the ACA been struck down ant discussion of any health care reform would hsve been off the table for the next 10-15 years.
I join many Democrats, independants and even the near extinct compassionate Cosvervative community as follows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fQp4XPAf_g
If it is indeed a start, then this is a good, but it feels like more of an end.
And mentioning Obamacare in the same sentence as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is downright obscene.
Please, Obamadrones- show SOME grasp of reality, now and then.
Do you actually believe that the Social Security that passed in the 1930′s is the same as the Social Security we know today? You don’t think the program has changed over the years?
Please tell us how it has changed.
Not the point.
The POINT is that FDR and his successors- especially Truman, Kennedy and Johnson- showed real motivation for continuing to expand and improve the system. Obama looks and acts for all the world as if he’s announcing “Mission Accomplished” and now it’s time to move on to gutting the social safety net and slashing the budget to make nice with his right-wing buddies.
Hell, I’ll be amazed if the law in it’s current form is actually implemented in it’s entirety in 2014, or at all.
Hmm…maybe that reply wasn’t meant for me?
I see no evidence that the White House or Democratic Party has any interest in building on this. Not in the slightest. In fact, I fully expect both to hope this issue now vanishes from the debate for the rest of the year- and next year, and the year after that….
As far as elected officials are concerned, I expect this is an “Ok, we survived this, this should shut the base up for 20 years or so, let’s get back to doing what we do best- enriching our friends with Austerity measures and cuts in the social safety net” moment more than an “ok let’s go forward with this” moment. And the Obamabots will greet any sign of “what now?” impatience with “there you go again, stupid progressives, you are never satisfied” patter.
Ding! Ding!! Ding!!!
indeed
My expectation as well. The big money likes the bill just the way it is. It will probably be a generation before they take this up again, because even though it hasn’t fixed much of anything, the government and the insurance industry will be spending lots of time and money telling folks it has, and those who don’t know better will believe them, at least until it’s their turn to be without real health insurance.
I tend to agree with you RAJensen~
Glad ACA not struck down bc that would have undone 80yrs New Deal law. Worry about Medicaid expansion limits though- thats how in the end we will wind up covering most folks-not via mandates. Obama admin will have to cook up soemthing on Medicaid otherwise ACA is further crippled:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-that-states-have-choice-whether-to-join-medicaid-expansion/
I always thought the states had a better case on the Medicaid question than on the individual mandate. Apparently that’s where we ended up.
Cool? Hmmm. Mixed bag, for sure.
Bottom line it was upheld…to quote a well known Naval figure ‘WELL BLOW ME DOWN!!!”
Yep, you and popeye. You have always made me think a little bit of him.
At least this is a step from what we had before this healthcare bill. Now maybe we can get a more moderate congress and a true progressive president to take it a step farther and give us medicare for all.
That is what I am hoping too Angels~ I really think most people will be happy when they see how it plays out.
I agree. It’s a good start and something to build upon. I would love to see Medicare for All, too. Knowing my 17 year old son will be covered under my health insurance until he’s 26 is important to me. I give President Obama credit for taking this on.
Please continue to weigh in! I’m fascinated to hear what you all think.
Aw shucks, I bet you’re just making polite conversation.
As a pure piece of Constitutional law navigation, I think Roberts charted a creative course, even if it essentially amounts to calling a spade a spade…or a tax a tax.
As for what it portends for the future of ACA, I will have to wait and see. I think there can be little doubt the health insurance industry was counting on the mandate to make the average morbidity pool work out for them. We’ll have to wait and see if the tax is sufficiently punitive on the young and healthy to create the appropriate loss ratios.
And no doubt, good for Obama’s political hay making machine.
Howard Dean says that they found in VT that people given the chance will buy it. He said they don’t have a mandate and Insurance companies said they would be ruined and it has not worked out that way. He also pointed out that it is the young who try to be free riders because they don’t think they will get sick and they are alredy covered until they are 26.
From Wikipedia:
The Vermont health bill, H.202, has led to the creation of Green Mountain Care, a private/public single payer exchange system that will give universal coverage to Vermonters and create an electronic system of medical records in an effort to make the system efficient and accessible.[5] In April 2011, it passed the Vermont Senate.[6] In May 2011, the governor signed it into law, making Vermont the first state to have a single payer health care system.[7]
The move was welcomed by liberal and progressive politicians and activists throughout the United States, including those who had advocated for the United States National Health Care Act of 2010. However, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prevents the Green Mountain Care law from going into effect in Vermont until 2017; the state government is currently requesting for a “waiver for state innovation” from the federal government.
I hope they get it.
I am shocked it was Roberts that upheld it. I thought it would be Kennedy, but he voted with the conseratives on this one and I am in the middle on this one. I like somethings about the bill and others not so much. This is good for President Obama as far as Democratic congressmen and women as well as Senators, thats awhole other story especially in conserative rural areas. There is going to be alot of ad commericals against this ruling. I figured no one should celebrate, because this fights continues.
So, since Chief Justice Roberts sided with the “liberals” here, does that mean the fauxgressives will stop using the “scary Supreme Court justice” argument to defend votng for Obama? Or is Roberts only sometimes scary. How does this work?
Some things to consider:
People have been asking in comments which house this bill originated in. I thought that it was the House, but apparently the original House bill isn’t the one that finally passed — the one that the court just ruled on originated in the Senate. This opens up an entirely new line of legal attack, because any revenue bill must originate in the House. No one had bothered to make this argument in the past, because no one had considered the mandate a tax. But now that the court has declared it to be so, it could be struck down as unconstitutional because of the process.
and…
because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.
More legal wrangling is just what the country needs at this point.
The bill that passed was based on Sen. Max Baucus’s bill. The Senate rejected Chris Dodd’s version, and the House version was, as I recall, dumped by the leaders of Congress in favor of Baucus’s when it came time to figure out how to reconcile the bills.
The House version was the better of the two, IMHO. For one thing, it had a workable enforcement mechanism for the new insurance regulations. Funny how that got left out.
PWT: it will be fascinating to see if the Feds give a waiver to VT.
I would say no. They wouldn’t want to have Vermont’s system working well while theirs goes to shit.
Judging by the reaction of the right this may be the fire that Mittens needed to ignite his base.
I will be curious to see how much money he collects over the next 24 hours.
I might have agreed that this helps the cons if their candidate wasn’t Mitt (Romneycare) Romney! Rick Santorum was right Romney is the worst person to make the arguments Romney is going to try to make over the next four months. Romneycare is more liberal than Obamacare, Romneycare allows for taxpayer funded abortions.
hmmmm, I don’t know Solo.
Mitten’s has collected more than $1 Million today.
nothing wakes you up faster than a cold bucket of water in your face.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! More like the torpedo that sank the SS Mittens.
PWT: you raise an interesting question. PPACA passed on 3/23/10 and the Senate passed Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act a week later, using the Reconciliation budget device to avoid a filibuster. I wonder if there’s a leg to stand on by the enemies of the law.
What so called “liberals” on radio and tv don’t seem to understand is that the SCOTUS ruled that the Health Care Plan is Constitutional, not that it’s Popular.
yep your right jjamele, I wanted a Public Option and so did many others according to the polls at the time this Healthcare bill was being crafted. I am just not going to celebrate until I see how this Healthcare Bill works. This Healthcare bill is unpopular according to the polls and that why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Dick Durbin asked Republicans to work together on bi-partianship for a jobs bill. Geez, Dems still don’t get it, the Republicans are going to double-down and Eric Holder is just one example.
Now that it is declared constitutional all the Dems should run on it and make an effort to explain it’s benefits. But they won’t. McCaskill has not made any statement today.
One of the reasons it is so unpopular is because the Tea Party was allowed to define it with no push back.
Medicare for all would be great, but I’m trying to imagine how we would get out of endless arguing over what services tax dollars should pay for.
At least we’d get to argue. Right now, most folks who have health insurance aren’t in a position to, and there’s plenty that isn’t covered, or is covered grudgingly and slowly.
I saw recently McCaskill is skipping the Dem convention.
Sec said:
HEY angels “My experiences with white people in California is that they tend not to be racist,” SEE!!! If everyone just had the good sense to be born WHITE everything would be FINE!!!!!
Sec, I never said white people are not racist. Quite the opposite from my experiences living in Chicago and New York. Many white racists in those cities. And in case you weren’t aware Black people are racist too. I think Black people may hide it better though.
I will say that I worked for a very liberal, California Obama supporter/doner years ago and he had a problem with Black clients if they came from the wrong zip code. It wasn’t good for the company’s image. Yes racists come in both political parties.
I changed companies after I became the top producer.