Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[mokbu]

Torie wins the award.

[riceowl]

Good God, Kennedy:

"In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

[mokbu]

FL in 2000?

[muon2]

The media is still parsing the part that is overturned in relation to Medicaid.

[True Federalist]

Roberts apparently found that while Constitutionally the mandate is a tax, because the act calls it a penalty, the Anti-Injunction Act was not invoked, so the suit could be brought.  Odd.

[rob in cal]

I wonder how this will effect liberal's attitude of George W Bush, since it was one of his appointees who was pivotal in saving the mandate, and apparently the whole act.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wonder how this will effect liberal's attitude of George W Bush, since it was one of his appointees who was pivotal in saving the mandate, and apparently the whole act.

Opposition was much stronger against Alito, though.

[True Federalist]

I see where CNN got confused.  Roberts first talked about how the mandate was not upholdable under the Commerce Clause before saying it was upholdable under the taxing power.

[t_host1]

Barack Hussein Obama can now be officially named the emperor of all tax and spend governments of the world.
Bill Clinton and Jimmy cater gotta be just setting back and saying “man, this guy is good!”
Thumbs up to the Chief Justice, he kept intact the correct tools for the people.

[oakvale]

Barack Hussein Obama can now be officially named the emperor of all tax and spend governments of the world.
Bill Clinton and Jimmy cater gotta be just setting back and saying “man, this guy is good!”
Thumbs up to the Chief Justice, he kept intact the correct tools for the people.

^ This.

[Torie]

Beet is vindicated. The mandate is a tax!  Who knew?    Yes, it is not appealing to put something into a different box for a lawyer when the economics is exactly the same. In this case, Roberts stripped away the label to get to the substance. SOCTUS did however surprisingly toss out the Act's stick that states lose all their medicaid subsidies if they don't expand their programs, presumably because it was viewed as unduly coercive. That sounds rather fuzzy to me.  

[rob in cal]

I believe it was conservative legal analyst John Eastman who called Roberts a creature of the Washington Administrative State.  Looks like Roberts is on his way to becoming a new swing vote and might now be joining Kennedy in creating a new 3-4-2 conservative, liberal, swing vote breakdown.
Alright all you young post-age 26 slacker hipsters out there, time to start insurance shopping, and remember go for the gusto on coverage if its subsidized.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Beet is vindicated. The mandate is a tax!  Who knew?    Yes, it is not appealing to put something into a different box for a lawyer when the economics is exactly the same. In this case, Roberts stripped away the label to get to the substance. SOCTUS did however surprisingly toss out the Act's stick that states lose all their medicaid subsidies if they don't expand their programs, presumably because it was viewed as unduly coercive. That sounds rather fuzzy to me.  

Justice Roberts' majority opinion was not completely signed on to by any other justice. I wonder if that's kind of rare. Anyways, the fuzziness was what Roberts felt like doing.

[True Federalist]

Ginsburg with Sotomayor in support would have found that the changes in Medicaid were valid, so it looks like the severing of the Medicaid provisions is 7-2.

[asexual trans victimologist]

What was the problem with the Medicaid provisions, again?

[TJ in Wisco]

I thought that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to rule on whether a tax is constitutional until it takes effect? If the mandate is a tax than shouldn't the suit have been dismissed and need to be reargued in a couple years?

[True Federalist]

I thought that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to rule on whether a tax is constitutional until it takes effect? If the mandate is a tax than shouldn't the suit have been dismissed and need to be reargued in a couple years?

Roberts apparently found that while Constitutionally the mandate is a tax, because the act calls it a penalty, the Anti-Injunction Act was not invoked, so the suit could be brought.  Odd.

[Torie]

I thought that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to rule on whether a tax is constitutional until it takes effect? If the mandate is a tax than shouldn't the suit have been dismissed and need to be reargued in a couple years?

That is a procedural hurdle which Roberts ignored. I don't blame him.

[Torie]

What was the problem with the Medicaid provisions, again?

I don't know, but Kennedy was yipping about undue coercion of the states. I am amazed that Roberts bought into that.

[mokbu]

Is Kennedy really a swing vote or just a libertarian?

[True Federalist]

What was the problem with the Medicaid provisions, again?

The PPACA considerably expanded the scope of Medicaid and threatened to take away the funding for the existing version if States refused to go along with the expansion.  The 7-2 decision on this point said the Feds couldn't do that.

[So the Heroes Fall]

What was the problem with the Medicaid provisions, again?

I'm going to guess some type of 10th Amendment type argument.

[True Federalist]

What was the problem with the Medicaid provisions, again?

I don't know, but Kennedy was yipping about undue coercion of the states. I am amazed that Roberts bought into that.

Not just Roberts, but also Breyer and Kagan.

[Speaker Dereich]

Is Kennedy really a swing vote or just a libertarian?

He's just a libertarian. The people at Cato consider him one of their own: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/justice-kennedys-mysterious-philosophy/

[technical support]

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the controversial health care law championed by President Barack Obama in a landmark decision that will impact the November election and the lives of every American.

(Ed.  For more - read it at CNN.)