First of all, the ruling is available as a pdf on the Supreme Court's website here. The official title of the case is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (I'm not linking to the pdf directly because it sometimes causes formatting issues here).
I'm just reading the syllabus for now (the summary at the top of the opinion). Here's what I gather so far...
ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT
This part of the ruling deals with an 1867 law barring citizens from suing to stop a tax law before taxes are collected, and the court rules that the act does *not* apply to this case. Which is strange, because they go on to uphold Obamacare on the grounds that it is a legitimate use of tax power. What this means is that Obamacare is a tax for purposes of the ruling, but *not* a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.
Because Congress describes the individual mandate as a "penalty," not a "tax," the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply.
COMMERCE CLAUSE + NECESSARY & PROPER CLAUSE
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
This part of the decision completely validates Randy Barnett's fairly hokey but now famous argument that, rather than regulating existing commerce, the Individual Mandate would "create commerce in order to regulate it."
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Hopefully the concurrences will at least make the profound factual weaknesses of this argument plain. Indeed Congress should not be able to compel people to enter commercial activity against their will...but in point of fact the individual mandate does not do that. Instead it seeks to regulate an ubiquitous form of commerce of which all Americans are already a part, but which has been poorly construed by the law up until now. This is a failure of the court to comprehend the nature of risk pool insurance and how it differs in kind from simple exchange transactions.
As for the Necessary & Proper Clause, Roberts notes that it derives its power from enforcement of other enumerated powers, and if the Commerce Clause doesn't apply here, neither does the N&P Clause. Interestingly though, in order to make this ruling Roberts finds it necessary to invent an entirely new distinction between "necessary" and "proper" in order to disqualify the clause, implying that the Court at least recognizes the "necessity" of the individual mandate as part of a scheme to perform a legitimate function (i.e. reform interstate health insurance).
Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.
Opinions are currently up in the air as to how much this part of the ruling will affect Congress' ability to expand or regulate health care & other areas of the general welfare. As I said, I personally believe the individual mandate is misconstrued in the first place, and that Congress isn't compelling anyone to enter commerce (they're compelling people to pay for commerce they are already part of).
TAX POWER
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax. [citations removed]
And the court finds that it can. By generously interpreting the plain language and the "penalty" label, and taking a generous, functional (as opposed to a skeevy, literal) interpretation of the law as written, Roberts and the majority agree with what many have said in defense of the actual law: it acts like a tax.
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.
Nor is it a capitation or poll tax, since "a tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or direct tax under this Court's precedents." So the tax argument stands, and the major affect of this ruling on this law (again exactly what binding precedent this will set for future laws is still very much a matter of dispute) would seem to be in the nature of kind of a semantic scolding of Congress by the Court.
MEDICAID EXPANSION
This is actually a pretty big deal, I believe. Basically the ruling says that Congress exceeded its authority under the Spending Clause with its provision to revoke a state's entire Medicaid funding allotment if it refuses to go along with the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion. The Government claims that the expansion is properly viewed as only a modification of the existing program, and that this modification is permissible because Congress reserved the “right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision” of Medicaid. §1304. But the expansion accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree. The original program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. A State could hardly anticipate that Congress’s reservation of the right to “alter” or “amend” the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically. The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.
The gist of this ruling is that the Medicaid expansion is now going to be a whole lot more "voluntary" than before. In short, the Medicaid expansion is going to cover far fewer uninsured Americans than originally anticipated, particularly in red states hostile to the idea of social insurance to begin with. How this will shake out, given that these same individuals will instead be covered under mandatory subsidized private insurance, remains to be seen.
CONCLUSIONS (FOR NOW)
The ruling takes a somewhat ineffectual attempt to reform health care and makes it a bit more toothless. But many of the provisions of the act...mandatory coverage, no recissions, consumer rebates, subsidies, etc., remain in place, and overall this is a vindication for Obamacare and the Democrats in Congress.
Or I should say, a big semantic victory for Randy Barnett and the ridiculous broccoli clause argument, but a real, practical victory for those who see this as at least a start, albeit a flawed one, at bringing the utterly broken Frankenstein monstrosity that is the US health care system under control.
Roberts likes Barnett's argument and insulting philosophers
(#283010)Frankly I don't know if upholding the ACA was worth this dig at philosophers by the Chief Justice: "... the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were “practical statesmen,” not metaphysical philosophers."
Also In Which the CJ
(#283018)reveals himself to be a Marxist.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”
First buyer's remorse by a prominent conservative re: Roberts
(#283011)The Perils of Shortsightedness
David Bernstein • June 28, 2012 10:44 am
I've been half tempted to troll Bernstein for some time now
(#283087)Posting uncreative things such as "You David Bernstein, are a hack and you are ruining the Volokh Conspiracy"
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
He and Todd Zwicki are hacks and do ruin volokh
(#283090)It's to their discredit that the proprietors of the site don't realize this.
Well...
(#283014)Wagsterdamus called the long-shot outcome, but didn't foresee that Kennedy would side with the dissenters. Props to notyou, who called the 5-4 upholding. Maybe Traveller too?
What I'm interested now is in the Republican pivot. Should the law stand (and I can't see even a President Romney ushering up a Senate super-majority) then the Republicans need to pivot from "Repeal and replace!" to "Mend it don't end it" in 2016. Because you just can't run against a law that provides subsidies to 70+ million people. Will the base let them do it? Will the general electorate believe them?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
No Need For 60 Votes
(#283024)Between control of the regulatory agencies and the budgetary process, 51 votes in the Senate would be quite adequate for pulling the wires out of Obamacare, and if Romney and a Republican Senate were elected they'd have all the mandate they needed to do so.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Wishful thinking
(#283026)The mandate and the rest of the insurance regs take 60, and it's a political impossibility to remove subsidies but leave the mandate. What 51 votes gets you is chipping away at Medicaid.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
The mandate is a tax and obviously can be repealed with 51
(#283029)The regs are trickier, but they're not budget neutral either, and could've been implemented with 51 if anyone had cared to try.
Budget neutrality isn't the test
(#283033)The sole or primary effect of the legislation has to be reduce the deficit. The mandate couldn't be passed by reconciliation in 2009, and it can't be revoked by reconciliation in 2013.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
You mean like both Bush tax cuts reduced the deficit?
(#283037)The mandate wasn't passed by reconciliation, that doesn't mean it couldn't have been.
Who has said this was an option available to Democrats?
How about some of the same people who just correctly argued that the mandate was constitutional as a tax power - Jack Balkin linked above and Big Tent Democrat.
What?
(#283028)But the left was told healthcare reform could only pass with 60 votes and that we needed to hand the store away to Lieberman and Nelson in order to get it.
Now you're telling me you could overturn it with just 51?
The narrative on this if the GOP overturns it will be that they've "cheated".
Better hurry though. Once the law comes into effect, there won't be much chance.
Imagine, however, a bill passed in 2009 that had a public option and no mandate, and that came into effect on January 1, 2012. It would not have been in any peril of being overturned or repealed, and would've been a huge boon to the Ds and Obama.
We're experiencing the ripples of Obama's political malpractice of failing to use his majorities, and the waves aren't yet passed.
Because the President is a big strong man
(#283034)That can make people in his party vote the way he wants them to.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
My wish was Obama could have
(#283038)My wish was Obama could have shown some leadership and dragged the whiny, cowering congressional Dems into the 20th century on health care. It is a testament to the power of conservative media that even with a clear majority of Americans wanting universal coverage, it wasn't seriously considered.
The problem with dragging whiny, cowering congressional Dems
(#283040)anywhere is that they tend to be whiny and cowering because they know that their districts lean right, and that their whiny, cowering seats are very likely to have an (R) on the table card next term if they vote in certain ways on certain bills.
Having fewer Dems, even whiny, cowering ones, in Congress does little to help promote legislation.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Right. The 2014 start date
(#283039)was some structural bind imposed from w/out from which Obama could not break free.
Or ... he prioritized the budget crap himself - which all the reporting I read suggested was behind the start date - and gave Republicans a good shot at repealing his signature piece of legislation.
Obama did not lead like a strong or wise person and that's the problem. The Supremes just got their first shot, it was a nail-biter that never should've been, now the GOP gets another.
The bill passed by the skin of its teeth
(#283041)I just have no idea where your confidence that it could have passed if it added to the deficit in the first ten years comes from.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
It's based partly on the assumption that the ACA
(#283045)could've passed with 51 votes.
Separately, you think the guy who immediately announced a spending freeze and pursued 18 months of deficit reduction/grand bargains had nothing to do with a budget-inspired '14 start date.
None of this all-powerful Congress stuff ever makes sense of the evidence - it just seems to function as an attempt to shield the president from criticism.
The evidence is
(#283058)The words and deeds of members of Congress. Your evidence is just fanciful hypothesizing.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Bird rule says they have to have off sets...
(#283108)Not sure that does you much good... Unless you want to change who pays...
So About Those Bets...
(#283016)My first:
"Left As Is. IOW, uphold the entire law. 5-4 with a bevy of competing concurrences/dissents."
Followed up a week later after Knox v. SEIU with:
"I think the mandate will be ruled unconstitutional, and Alito et al will take the opportunity to voice discomfort (or more!) with the heretofore broad interpretations of the Commerce Clause."
Imma interpret that as correct both times (Left as is & a boundary put in place for the Commerce Clause).
So about those bets...nobody won 100% but some props...
(#283031)Notyou and Traveller originally said the entire law would be upheld 5/4. Very close but no cigar...they struck down the Medicaid expansion, so you guys called the mandate and the split but not the "other" issue in the case. Notyou's revised prediction is somewhat accurate...the mandate was ruled unconstitutional semantically, but constitutional functionally. What a grand, wonderful waste of juridical time this has been. :)
HankP said he found it hard to believe the court could come up with a rationale for jetting the mandate that wasn't "sheer hackery," and so his prediction was 6/3 upholding with Kennedy & Roberts joining the majority. Wrong, surprisingly wrong, about Kennedy, who actually voted with the court's radical conservatives to strike down the entire law with no attempt to sever the offending sections. But props for calling the Roberts concurrance.
Notyou and Traveller, you can pick up your new Ford Probes at the ticket office. Hank, your matching candlesticks will be shipped to you within 6-8 weeks.
You can all begin using the title "Courtside Badass" at your earliest convenience.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Good forecasting
(#283032)Some props have to go to Jack Balkin, who wrote:
The Health-Care Mandate Is Clearly a Tax—and Therefore Constitutional
Adler on the ruling
(#283025)Roberts the conservative minimalist. The majority rejected Obamacare on commerce and necessary and proper grounds, but it's unclear to me how that would limit the scope of future legislation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
Not a Limit Yet
(#283043)Since it was basically 4-4.
I'm thinking back to a lot of the commentary after Oral arguments about the shotgun approach the government's lawyers took to defend the law.
Given the outcome, scattershot was the way to go.
Put another way (and paraphrasing the CJ), idealists worry about the constitutional implications. Realists find a way to get the job done.
Erick Erickson
(#283035)"On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
Now?
(#283036)Always could, buddy.
M Aurelius was probably right.
not so fast
(#283089)It's a privacy right...so wouldn't it be somewhat in the same ballpark as a poll tax?
i.e. if this "non-spontaneous abortion" tax is seen as prohibitively high, then it wouldn't be allowed, because it's taxing something related to a privacy right.
Kind of like if new firearm purchases were taxed the hell out of.
Maybe Erik E really is trying to get legalize the chance for a prohibitively high gun tax?
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
And in other news: Dewey Defeats Truman!
(#283044)Well, at least if you read it on CNN....
Poor CNN.
(#283049)Now a much larger part of the country can join we newshounds in their unsullied contempt for their organization and its post-2000 approach to "news."
M Aurelius was probably right.
Pure Class On The Left
(#283046)Robert Malchman whines about CJ Roberts being an evil genius.
Wow--imagine what they would have said about Clarence Thomas if he had been in the majority. All very enlightened, I'm sure.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Right, and Obama was playing 11 dimensional chess
(#283048)This is not plausible and who is Robert Malchmann - an associate adjunct professor at Cordoza school of law who writes pieces for NY Daily?
I mean, I may outrank the guy since I've been hired as a visiting assistant professor.
Congratulations again!
(#283056)SLAC, research university, or mid-range state school?
You sure you want to open up the Twitter can of worms?
(#283050)I gotta warn you, I don't think the primal scream from the Tea Party right is going to come off sane & wholesome by comparison.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Another angle to consider
(#283051)is that Roberts was sick of everyone sucking up to Kennedy when he's supposed to be the Chief Justice.
Hadn't thought of that. "I'll show you f---kers, heh heh!"
(#283062)At least as plausible as the notion he didn't want to preside over the most hacktastic Court in living memory, make an utter joke out of "originalism" and so forth.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Quite Possibly Scalia's WAS The Majority Opinion....
(#283065)...at one time.
As noted by David Burstein over at Volokh:
Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2012/06/evidence-that-the-votes-sh... (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”).
Now this question if fascinating and would account for Scalia's recent and brutally embarrassing mouthing off...like verbal diarrhea.
Scalia may have lost some friends...Really, John Roberts being the most important.
Hey, its his bed, he made it.
Best Wishes, Traveller...Courtside Badass...lol
I saw that. Going theory is Roberts was heavily pressured
(#283068)not to go with the wingers on the court on this one.
M Aurelius was probably right.
How do You Pressure Roberts? Also, You Don't think that Scalia
(#283075)...Alito and Thomas leaned on him hard, hard, hard?
That Roberts stood up and said...I don't want this to be my legacy, this is my Court and it is being abused...I'm not going to let it be remembered this way.
Hell yes...
Who do you think leaned on Roberts? His wife? (But I do think she did). Obama has no access...I think that this will become a DANGEROUS Right Wing Talking Point.
I'd like to nip it in the bud right here.
(BTW, Verilli made the Tax argument in Oral and Written presentation...and was ridiculed for it...proves he was right. I don't agree with the Roberts Decision, Commerce Clause does reach the Health Care Industry...but more broadly, protecting the LEGITIMACY of the Court for the Future...really is Roberts Proper & Primary function as CJ, by whatever means available)
Also, Legally, this is the correct decision...and the Court has no purpose to usurp the Legislative function...the Court rules, the Legislature legislates...as it should be. The Court has forced its way to front of the policy table for too long...doing this, interjecting itself where it doesn't belong, is a form of corruption, you know.
Best Wishes, Traveller
How do you "pressure" CJ Roberts?
(#283080)Simple:
Make him believe that his "Roberts Court" legacy will make him into the "21st Century Roger Taney"
I'm not sure...just reporting a rumor
(#283081)that seemed plausible. I don't for a minute believe that SCOTUS justices are immune from lobbying efforts, but you might be right that this is a dangerous thing to start talking about.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Kagan's powers of influence
(#283095)are said to be considerable, more than the other liberals. It would be interesting to find out if she played an important role.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Interesting
(#283099)Sounds as plausible as anything I've heard about why Roberts apparently switched.
This ruling was so extremely close, and a popular bill would not have been in as much danger. Perhaps there's a lesson here about the dangers of passing a sweeping bill that has no core constituency except beltway centrist types.
More speculation
(#283102)The ACA was not opposed by the Chamber of Commerce or the pharmaceutical industry.
Perhaps a business-friendly jurist, as Roberts most certainly is, could be persuaded along the following lines: what reason do the Democrats have in future to secure the blessing of big business before passing legislation if SCOTUS conservatives are going to overturn it regardless?
Just a thought.
And a good one
(#283115)Repealing just the mandate would be anathema to business interests, especially the health insurance companies but also hospitals and drug companies. He might not have wanted to go full monty and kill the whole law, and the inbetween steps might have been alarming to a pro-business guy.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Notice that no one wanted to sever the mandate
(#283131)despite the fact that most lower courts who struck down the mandate also severed it. And to me severing the mandate looked most consistent with conservative principles of judicial restraint.
But there were 4 votes for upholding the whole thing and 4 votes for striking down the whole thing and Roberts likely switched between camps.
Which speaks to business interests being very important parties to the court case.
That's a Good Theory
(#283117)He didn't switch because Obama threatened his family.
He switched because the USCofC did.
Denniston
(#283054)Good analysis.
The repercussions? Just spitballing here, but when the time comes, an untold number will opt out of paying premiums and choose the lower-cost tax. The health care insurance pool won't get larger and may shrink. With the raised level of minimum coverages and perhaps a smaller pool of ratepayers, health insurance companies will face their own financial crisis and do their own form of opting out by getting out of the business. The next step? Health care re-reform, perhaps with another shot at the public option and single-payer.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
It's been all gamed out, BD
(#283057)Thanks to Mr. Romney we already know how people react to tax penalties for no coverage. Unaccountably, people sometimes follow the law even when it isn't rational to.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Or, it might be that insurance profits have been so obscene
(#283063)heretofore that the mandatory issue requirements, the MLR caps and other heavy limitations placed on insurers may actually still be swingable even without a flood of new, cheap, healthy policyholders.
It may hurt their bottom line and their shareholders (or it may not), but it's possible that there's way more than enough cash in the industry to actually, you know, pay for health care without even breaking into the red.
Also too, there are the subsidies. Believe it or not, millions of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured would like to have access to good, non-catastrophic health care. Throw in some subsidies, the small tax break, the new exchanges set up to make choices easier, the new uniform minimum coverage requirements, I'll make a new prediction. There will be a fairly large number of people enrolling in new policies in the years following 2014.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Myth
(#283064)Unless you believe that a 4.5% margin is an obscene amount of profit.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
Note that profit is different from MLR,
(#283067)and I shouldn't've said "profits" when what I meant was "obscenely & mysteriously high costs of doing business". It isn't unusual for an insurer to operate with an MLR of 60%. Now what that means is that only 60% of the premiums they receive get paid out in claims for actual medical treatments. Where's the rest of the money go? Beats me.
Medicare & Medicaid operate with an MLR of around 92%, and that's covering by far the largest, and sickest, risk group in the country, paying far more claims, with a far larger bureaucracy, etc. Something ain't right with private insurance.
I tend to think that health insurer's real profit margins lie somewhere between the Wall St. reported profits of 4.5% and MLR + profits, or 44.5%. But, I shouldn't call the entire amount "profits," because that's confusing.
Incidentally, I'm reminded from the Wiki page...Obamacare caps MLRs for large-group policies at 85%, and it's small group policies that are capped at a slightly more generous 80%.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Executive compensation
(#283069)Private jets, all sorts of perks and benefits can be rolled up under administrative costs.
But the US would not have its awesomely efficient
(#283071)healthcare and health insurance system unless our healthcare executives were compensated at many times the rate of their equivalents in other countries.
Some people on the left tried to do something about
(#283072)that government-granted monopoly that allows BigPharma to rake in 20+% profits.
not too much help from your side of the aisle on that one.
I would take the conservative wailing and gnashing of teeth
(#283070)more seriously if they had any sort of alternative plan. They don't. (Unless "let the uninsured die" is their plan. My bet is that one didn't do well in focus groups.)
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
Yeah, Like "Repeal and Replace"
(#283076)The "Repeal" part is easy - and doesn't require much thought or analysis: just the Politics Of Resentment in action...
The "Replace" part??
Not so simple...
I think it works like this
(#283085)Phase 1: Repeal Anti-Hillarycare
Phase 2: ????????
Phase 3:
ProfitHire Frank Luntz and pass Anti-Hillarycare again"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Interesting Commerce Clause argument at Volokh:
(#283086)Russell Korobkin, billing himself as "perhaps the only law professor in the country who teaches/studies health law who has not published something on the ACA case," throws his hat in the ring at the thirteenth hour to suggest a reading of the Commerce Clause that turns the entire activity/inactivity distinction on its ear.
This argument, if I understand it, would hold that any area of commerce that could be regulated by individual states, but has interstate implications, can be regulated instead by the federal government if a national solution would be superior to a piecemeal solution among the several states.
This sounds somewhat close to saying the federal gov't can do anything states can do, so long as it affects interstate commerce, which plainly can't be right. States can do things to regulate commerce which the federal government can't do, at least as I understand it, but so long as this is narrowly construed within the Commerce Clause there might be something to it.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Doesn't seem right
(#283093)After enumerating the powers, the constitution says everything else is left to the states or the people, so it does seem that personal liberty is part of the equation.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Many conservatives announced they would leave the US
(#283091)if Obamacare was upheld ... but they couldn't find a single wealthy democracy w/out universal healthcare to move to.
Romney: The individual mandate is "ultimate conservatism"
(#283101)This guy's like the bible.
(#283113)He says pretty much whatever you believe he says.
M Aurelius was probably right.
That is a Very Interersting Way You Phrase this...Hummm...nt
(#283114)Traveller
Wow...
(#283116)Why wasn't that in a dozen commercials in the primaries?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
I Dunno
(#283118)Doesn't this all boil down, politics wise, to conservatives bleating TAX TAX TAX TAX for the next several months? Which will be novel.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
That's what they're going to try, but
(#283121)"bring back pre-existing conditions, recissions, throw millions out of coverage" and so forth is going to get them in trouble.
Not to mention, they're trying to elect the guy who invented Obamacare in order to repeal Obamacare.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Well where the hell have you been?
(#283196)you think you can just drop in and comment without an explanation?
I blame it all on the Internet
As requested, the Right Wing Twitterdammerung
(#283120)M Aurelius was probably right.
That's What You Came Up With?
(#283125)That doesn't even measure up to the "Jesusland" moonbat temper tantrum after the 2004 election that preceded the manufacture of "the election was stolen" conspiracy theories. It's funny that a black Republican quoting Ayn Rand is considered equivalent to liberals unselfconsciously making racist comments in public about Clarence Thomas, though. Very. . .revealing.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Huh, I guess declaring the end of the republic
(#283127)and comparing Obamacare to 9/11 don't count as over the top in today's Republican party. That, too, is revealing.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I See Your Point
(#283129)Liberals have been openly using racial insults against Clarence Thomas for over twenty years now without consequences--why would doing it on Twitter make any difference?
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
As are the comments of the moonbats who...
(#283132)...plan to escape Obama's tyranny by moving to Canada. Wonder what'll happen when they find out about Canada's totalitarian socialized health care system.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
I think this explains it
(#283135)From the Texas GOP 2012 party platform.
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills
Actually that probably explains a lot about the modern Republican party.
You Left Off The Rest Of The Sentence
(#283150)". . .and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." Per Wikipedia. Happy to correct that (I'm sure) accidentally misleading omission.
Liberal educators label a lot of things in misleading ways. For example, this mandatory, bigoted indoctrination program was labeled "voluntary." Fortunately, F.I.R.E. was there to make the usual suspects crawl back under their rocks.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
And MSE swallows the bait
(#283151)Hook line and sinker. Challenging ones fixed beliefs is a good thing. If they can't stand up to additional facts then they clearly weren't very good to begin with. That you think that is a gotcha is illuminating.
Not speaking of you personally but I think the ability to ignore facts that don't fit ones predefined beliefs is the fundamental problem with modern Republicans.
I Wasn't The One Who Left It Off In The First Place
(#283154)The fact that it was left off is illuminating.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Guess I have to spell it out for you
(#283157)I left it out knowing you would jump on it. Even though you doing so perfectly illustrates what is wrong with modern conservatives. The text left off makes the Texas GOP look worse not better. That you didn't see that (and apparently still don't) is what is illuminating.
I keep hearing about this but
(#283136)I keep hearing about this but consider it too crazy to consider true. Surely, people are not that dumb (ha ha!). I actually saw a comment on facebook claiming
Uh, right.
The outlook among the providers at my hospital is generally positive. Hospitals have made big changes in anticipation of current and coming ACA rules. Throwing that out would have meant more uncertainty in an already uncertain environment.
Here's my prediction:
(#283142)As the ACA is phased in, people will discover that they will no longer have to worry about hitting benefit caps should they become seriously and/or chronically ill, that their sick kids will not be denied medical treatment because they have a "pre-existing condition", and that insurers will actually have to spend premium dollars on providing healthcare. They will note a curious absence of death panels, and there will not be large numbers of dead people piling up in the streets.
If we're lucky, there might even be some actual cost savings realized.
And that's what scares Republicans to death about this bill and why the Right is having such a freak-out over it. Once the public gets used to Obamacare, they're not going to want to go back to what we had before the bill passed.
(This, of course, assumes that Obama wins re-election in November.)
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
Tut, tut
(#283134)Your team lost. Must be tough. Chin up and carry on.
And of course, the funniest thing about the Republicans
(#283179)is that they'll go on, predicting biblical destruction, real old testament stuff, dogs and cats living together - but if you mention that Mass. has the law in place now the response is "that's cool". So if the Feds do it it's the end of civilization as we know it, but if a state does it everything's copasetic.
I blame it all on the Internet
"states rights" people
(#283184)n/t
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Sure
(#283185)but "tyranny" doesn't become SOP just because of which governmental entity manages it.
I blame it all on the Internet
But Hank
(#283186)You could always escape tyranny be self deporting from taxachusetts.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Yeah
(#283198)I guess people can move for all kinds of reasons.
I blame it all on the Internet
I was riffing on Rubio
(#283202)http://theforvm.org/diary/jordan/obamacare-upheld-under-taxing-power-commerce-clause-arguments-rejected-medicaid-expansion-narrowly-construed#comment-283141
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
A sensible conservative take
(#283124)George Will:
Or, in other words, the government cannot create commerce in order to regulate it. Congress has to expand the size of government the old-fashioned way, through deficit-spending and taxation, without the crutch of an overly expansive Commerce Clause.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
"Dicta, Your Honor"
(#283126)That will be the phrase of the day the next time a liberal Administration tries to make a power grab via the Commerce Clause. In other words, the argument will be that the Roberts language regarding the Commerce Clause was not required for the outcome of the case, and is therefore not legally controlling. If the makeup of the Court has changed enough in the liberal direction by then, the phrasing might even be "mere dicta, Your Honor," which would be the rhetorical equivalent of kicking CJ Roberts in the 'nads.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Roberts put a lot of dicta out there
(#283130)only to be kicked in the 'nads.
Such a dicta.
(#283156)Obamacare arch-critic Ilya Somin links to a Con Law Prof who explains the Marks Rule. Simply put, the Marks Rule, derived from Marks v. United States, says that
The opinion simplicitur in this case, i.e. the narrowest controlling opinion shared by the four liberal justices and Roberts that establishes the court's ruling on NBIF v. Sebelius, is the opinion that the law is constitutional as an exercise of tax power. Everything Roberts writes about the process of reasoning he went through in order to arrive at that narrow agreement with the majority is commentary.
Now, you are going to say but aha! Roberts joined a majority of the minority, as it were, a five-justice block ready to rule that Congress cannot "force people to enter commerce." Federal courts are going to recognize that fact, and they are surely going to keep a weather eye on that fact in any future Commerce cases.
Fair enough, but two powerful items to consider.
1) Congress has rarely compelled anyone to "enter commerce." Roberts in his opinion admits as much...this is an exceedingly rare eventuality unlikely to come before any court in our lifetime.
2) Even if courts don't treat Roberts' opinion as "mere dicta," his opinion is going to offer VERY LITTLE guidance to lower courts, assuming a remotely similar case even comes up. Why, you ask? Because there's no test. Roberts makes no effort to draw any kind of line between "activity" or "inactivity," or to establish some kind of standard by which to adjudicate marginal cases.
Surely in the future there will be Commerce Clause challenges to regulations somebody doesn't like, but any such challenges that attempt to rely on Roberts' opinion here are going to quickly run out of runway.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Rule Of Five
(#283158)If five Justices choose to cite Roberts in smacking around the Commerce Clause, there will be little to stop them. If the Court followed Marks literally, judicial review itself would have been consigned to irrelevant dicta back in 1803.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Again Roberts' "smacking around the Commerce Clause"
(#283166)doesn't actually provide any bright-line rule for courts to use when applying his "ruling." A ruling without a rule is not a ruling. If nobody can tell you how to apply a decision to a different case, then it can't very well be binding.
How did he arrive at the conclusion that Americans are *not* all participants in the health insurance market in order to determine that Congress was "creating commerce"? He doesn't say. What reasoning did he use to reject Congress's contention that, since all Americans are currently, today in fact covered by other people's insurance, they were merely regulating existing commerce? He doesn't say. How does he define "proximity to commerce" either over time, or in relation to other commerce, and exactly how proximate do people have to be to said commerce before the Commerce Clause does become applicable?
He doesn't say.
Nothing in his ruling, or in the dissent, offers any kind of guide to lower courts faced with similar cases. This, of course, is why the court's reasoning is deeply flawed. They basically said "Nyah! nyah! la la la! Not commerce! I can't hear you, insurance isn't commerce!"
It doesn't hold up as a binding decision.
M Aurelius was probably right.
What I Find Interesting...(It's All About Me =/ You)
(#283168)...for a considerable period of time now, I have amazed at how well...I mean rightly and correctly and with sharp insight...a number of people here at the Forvm write about and analyze law.
I feel like I'm back in Law School with the best and brightest.
Falling behind in class...
I'd worry about this, except I really am a good lawyer...or passable...what is startling is that most of you are smarter than I, your analytic skills are better....even Hank (no disrespect intended), and he is a CPA is light years ahead of me...the rest of you are just out there in the Solar System...while I am bound in this earth born mud.
I think that I never have reason to ever think about the issues you guys tackle so blithely and with such ease...I mean I worry, a lot, about evidence code section 352 or section 1220...you just don't even know the knots I tie myself into over this...I am insanely obsessive with the Evidence Code...you guys not so much.
Me, the Commerce Clause, not so much as ever....lol
In any case, I do want to express my...sincere, really...admiration to the clear brain power you Gentlemen bring to the task and write about so lucidly.
Thank you.
You are an inestimable asset to the Forvm.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Thanks, Trav, but
(#283170)don't put me on retainer yet. I think there are a couple of things worth pointing out:
a) It isn't "hard" to understand generic law (like the commerce clause) for anyone willing to spend some time puzzling out case history. It is all for the most part based on simple common sense, derived into principles, derived back into common sense. It does take quite a bit of time, but it's much easier now that pretty much every public document ever created is online. Amateur legal analysis! Anyone can do it!
b) What's "hard" is actually practicing law, having a person put their property, their home, their well-being, their personal dignity, maybe even years of their life in your hands, and then it becomes your responsibility to know everything about the case. Relevant local statutes & procedures, the judge, the opposing counsel, every last detail of the case in question, you have to have all that (more or less) at your fingertips, you have to make countless judgment calls about how to shape a narrative, how to introduce evidence, how to sway judge & jury. Online you can make mistakes -- forget or misread an important precedent, etc. -- in a courtroom, those mistakes can & will hurt you and worse, your client.
Think about it this way: it's the difference between describing surgical procedures, and performing them. I can't tell you how much I admire guys like you and Eiland who have not only the willingness to take on that kind of responsibility on behalf of others, but also the proven ability to vindicate your clients' faith in you. And that's enough mutual admiration society toasting for tonight. :)
M Aurelius was probably right.
One other thing on the Commerce Clause...
(#283171)I don't mean to suggest that lower courts aren't going to pay attention to this opinion, dicta or not. I'd bet money that they'll pay a lot of attention to it, and I'd bet more money that state Atty. Generals and the like are going to be bringing new anti-Commerce Clause challenges to federal courts in hopes of ultimately junking Wickard and all the New Deal cases.
What I'm saying is that they're going to have a tough time "applying" Roberts' opinion, because unless I missed something major, he doesn't explain how he arrived at his conclusion. No test, no standard, no rule, no dividing line.
What I think this means is that the Court hasn't seen the last of this opinion.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I'm not a CPA
(#283181)I'm just a self taught computer systems consultant.
Trav, I'd get chewed up and spit out in court because deep down I believe that processes follow a logical progression. I know enough about the law (and accounting for that matter) to realize that my approach would get me in a lot of trouble very quickly.
I blame it all on the Internet
That's Correct, Staying on Your Feet, Taking Hits, Shutting-Up
(#283188)...especially knowing when not to say anything, saying nothing at all, is the greatest Talent.
Clients get unsettled by this...almost hurtfully quizzical, "Trav, the other attorney said everything,l he talked on and on, you almost never interrupted, the Judge said more than you...I mean, why are you with me?"
As we walk down the corridor, I'll raise an eyebrow, "Who won? Did the Judge run in you favor or not? We got what we wanted?"
"Yes," the client says, but adds, "I expect more out of an attorney, you just never said anything. I was disappointed."
I'll reply, "When you're winning, just shut up, that's my talent, to say just enough to nudge people in our favor...this is what I'm good at."
But late at night, in a spotlight in my heart, there is a murmur, "You're such a fraud, when you win, your client's are right, the facts are in your favor, anyone could of won that hearing/trial...when you lose, it is all your fault, you screwed up...Fraud!"
Knowing this, waking up, Shucking on the Suit, that takes a certain foolish courage.
Best Wishes, Traveller
????
(#283193)if you were consistently winning when the facts weren't in your favor, I'd consider using the word fraud. But winning when the facts are in your favor is the way things are supposed to be.
I blame it all on the Internet
LOL..Yes, When the Facts Are Against You, You Settle, But....
(#283200)....when you are blindsided...lol...these errors stay with you.
Not that it's my fault, but, sometimes....I was trying to save some oak trees...something I took pride in...the city was with me, the Neighbor said they were deadly dangerous...And they were...(raised eyebrows)
There had been a study, commissioned by my very client, saying they were soon to die, soon to cause property damage or injury...
Trouble was that everyone seemed to have a copy of this except me, and my client who paid for it.
Ooops....(not funny)
How do we settle this?...it was early in the case, meaning 6 months, but still...you just want to kill yourself, the big reveal was in open Court on a motion...Yikes!
The years may roll on with many successes...but those damned Oak Trees...I'll never forget them. I wake up in their shade in cold sweated nightmares...lol
Traveller
In other words, the Court invented a brand-new constitutional
(#283128)limit that doesn't even apply to the present case (since all Americans are de facto covered by private insurance, hence active consumers in the health insurance market).
Even if it did apply, it was unnecessary to rule on the Commerce Clause, since the opinion declares the law an exercise of the Tax Clause.
M Aurelius was probably right.
But it did apply
(#283138)The majority expressly rejected Obama's principal argument and sided with their Plan B (it really is a tax!).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
They didn't have to "reject the principal argument."
(#283139)SCOTUS doesn't rule on the merit of the government's arguments, it rules on the law itself. Ruling on the government's arguments the Court doesn't agree with usually isn't done...they just skip to the part that bears on the decision in the case.
In other words, the Court went out of its way to make a constitutional ruling that doesn't bear on the decision in this case. It's a bit like legislating from the bench.
M Aurelius was probably right.
But yet they did
(#283144)The majority laid out a marker on the Commerce Clause by directing rejecting the Obama argument that Obamacare was constitutional because of it. The language couldn't be clearer.
Sounds like you're siding with MSE's "mere dicta, your Honor" pathway to use Commerce Clause when going back to well to grow government some more. It won't happen, unless you can pass an in-lieu-of tax. And since the tax is now indeed a tax and not a "penalty", you've constrained yourselves because the GOP won't look kindly on future backdoor taxes. Roberts' ruling and opinion was quite elegant in that regard.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
Yes, they did
(#283145)go out of their way to rule on a constitutional question not required by the actual opinion.
They do so by mischaracterizing the mandate and manifestly failing to understand how insurance markets differ from exchange markets. (Hint: if you take broccoli from another person, Congress can require that you pay for it.)
M Aurelius was probably right.
No, It Was Definitely Required
(#283146)When the new Republican Congress repeals Obamacare with the new President Romney's help (and memo to David Frum: FOAD, RINO coward) , a method will be used that requires only 51 votes in the Senate, and the Democrats will whine like punks and try to overturn it in the courts--making it clear that the law would be unconstitutional without the tax angle will cut them off at the knees.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Assuming your little fantasy comes to pass...
(#283147)...what do you think should replace the ACA?
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
Don't be ridiculous. The
(#283148)Don't be ridiculous. The language (punks, cowards, kicking nads, etc...) indicate this isn't about fixing a woefully broken system but all about political gamesmanship. Not that anyone should be surprised.
Well, no.
(#283159)But I'm hoping one or two of the thoughtful conservatives here will give a secret preview of the GOP plan.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
GOp plan
(#283161)Ha, ha. That's a good one.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Dismantle the New Deal? -nt-
(#283167).
M Aurelius was probably right.
I have to think that it's parody
(#283183)to take it seriously as written would rather insulting.
I blame it all on the Internet
In what universe
(#283149)are Dems going to sue to stop the repeal of Obamneycare? AFAICT the House Parliamentarian is pretty much where rulings on reconciliation begin and end. Appealing to the courts to help the legislature work out its own rules would be ridiculous.
So no, in no way was it incumbent on the majority to rule on the Commerce Clause in order to uphold the law as a tax.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Finally a prediction from MSCOTT
(#283153)Romney wins, the GOP takes the Senate and retains the House.
We'll see!
Don't Forget The Implied. . .
(#283155). . ."won't get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate." If they get sixty seats, I'm wrong.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Okay
(#283163)Would you like to remove subsidies while maintaining the mandate?
Be my guest. Seems like political suicide to me.
Or, the other option… Would you like to so denature reconciliation so that you, in effect, do away with the filibuster? Again, be my guest. The filibuster is the biggest roadblock to progressive action.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Ooops!
(#283141)I see Republicans tying themselves in exquisite knots with "it's a tax".
Thanks for coming Senator, Next!
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Can you think of a
(#283160)Can you think of a hypothetical legislation that might come under this ruling? It seems to me, that the only laws that might affected would be conservative attempts to replace current government-run programs like Social Security or Medicare. EDIT: And even they would be pretty easy to rejigger so that they are in accordance with the ruling. I think the Commerce Clause stuff is a big nothing-burger, and not for the reasons Jordan cites although they may apply in theory, but because there's very little areas for the ruling to affect. If anything, I think the change of posture by the SC is more significant... that they may restrict the CC more in the future.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
So Congress shouldn't attempt to regulate interstate commerce
(#283133)that doesn't exist, or create it in order to regulate it.
Fair enough, hasn't happened in the past 200 years & I don't expect it will come up during the next 200 either.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
...and didn't happen with Obamacare. -nt-
(#283140).
M Aurelius was probably right.
Our stupid media, caught on camera.
(#283175)Here for your amusement is a series of national news interns running their butts off to try to scoop the competition. CNN and Fox originally reported that the law had been overturned. It's funny because they both suck at news.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I'd take issue with that Jordan
(#283177)Fox delivers the exact kind of news it's regular viewers demand.
But no one seems to demand or care anymore what CNN produces.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Oh, I guess it's not a tax now
(#283209)According to spokesflack Carney, despite the Supreme Court ruling, the ACA tax for not buying health insurance is a penalty, not a tax. So, to recap,
1. To get the bill passed, the tax is really a penalty.
2. To get a favorable ruling from judges, it's a tax.
3. Now that the ruling went their way, for political purposes, it's back to a penalty.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
Tell it to Romney
(#283211)http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/romneys-supreme-burden/?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Truer words were never said.
(#283244)From your link comments.
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
Is it a tax levied on everyone in order to raise revenue?
(#283212)No, it's a tax levied only on people who decline to purchase insurance, to offset insurance subsidies elsewhere. Congress and the President, 2 federal judges and 4 supreme court justices think it's a penalty (not a criminal penalty, but a fiscal one, for imposing additional costs on the health insurance system).
M Aurelius was probably right.
A tax is a tax is a tax
(#283213)The motives are irrelevant in the eyes of the court. By the way, Roberts' Commerce Clause opinion was joined by four others. It just ain't dicta.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
And the court's semantics are irrelevant
(#283219)in the eyes of Congress. The law was upheld because the actual "penalty" is carried out under the Tax Clause.
I've written about whether Roberts' opinion is dicta extensively elsewhere on this thread. Short version: it isn't binding but lower courts will still account for a 5-person non-binding opinion. Problem: the opinion offers lower courts absolutely zero guidance for actually ruling whether something is or isn't commerce, or whether a law is "proximate" enough to commerce. The opinion carries no test or rule, ergo it's useless, ergo SCOTUS will see new challenges to the opinion in fairly short order.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Not semantics, not irrelevant
(#283224)Like it or not, the Supreme Court just set a precedent, a precedent that was established by a majority of judges. You would be accurate if there only binding precedent and no other kind, but that's simply not reality.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
There's no way to apply Justice Roberts' opinion
(#283225)to other commerce cases, for the reason that he simply declines to explain how he came to the finding that de facto universal medical coverage is "not active commerce."
Therefore even if lower courts treat it as binding, despite the fact that the opinion wasn't shared by the ruling majority, they aren't going to know how to apply it. Therefore therefore, SCOTUS is going to see challenges and/or lower courts are going to seek clarification.
M Aurelius was probably right.
No way?
(#283229)Good luck with that law that forces an individual to buy something from a private company without the tax "out". More on this precedent:
The principle seems pretty clear.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
kind of like void due to vagueness seems to be Jordan's gist
(#283231)Did Adler address that?
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
You're missing the point.
(#283233)The government contended that uninsured individuals are "active" in commerce...because they are currently covered under other people's insurance. Uninsured individuals have "coverage," even though they don't pay for it. In the government's position, it doesn't matter when or if they ever need to receive health care, they are currently beneficiaries of coverage.
Roberts entirely rejects that view, but he doesn't say why. All he says is that Congress can't make people pay for coverage today...because they aren't actively seeking health care today. He doesn't explain why "coverage" doesn't count as an active form of commerce, and offers no guidance to future courts on how to distinguish active from inactive commerce.
What this means is that, binding or not, Roberts' opinion is going to be useless as tits on a kite the next time two parties come before a court, one of whom saying so-and-so class of people are active in commerce, the other saying no they ain't.
There has never been such a law. Never will be. The Supreme Court of the US just bought a straw man argument lock, stock and motherf--in barrel.
M Aurelius was probably right.
How many folks
(#283221)will be negatively affected by this new TAAAX! & to what degree?
A conservative estimate please.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
No
(#283248)a tax can be a "revenue enhancement" or "increased fees" when Republicans are in office.
I blame it all on the Internet
The same free-rider tax
(#283214)Imposed by Governor Romney, no less.
I think that fact bears repeating, like a gazillion times.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
I would just like to see better arguments against the CC side
(#283232)Like say, if there aren't enough many people that get health coverage and don't pay or don't even pay for a significant portion of it.
Or say if there aren't enough people that have needed a substantially large amount of $ for healthcare.
Because if there was a significant number of people getting health care that couldn't afford pay, there does seem to be more than enough room for the government requiring people to pay for it in advance.
Show me a person with a body that doesn't use healthcare, and I'll meet you at the beer volcano on our way to the stripper factory.
healthcare seems like has an unique niche in commerce.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
It's a bind that binds both sides
(#283227)All the GOPers screaming that it's now a tax? They're agreeing with the ruling. And contradicting their previous insistence that the act was unconstitutional.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Stay classy conservatives
(#283222)http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206280027
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias