Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's suppose the Supreme Court not only rules against the individual mandate but also strikes down the rest of the provisions of the health care law that goes along with it -how will such a ruling impact President Obama's re-election campaign?

If it's a 5-4 ruling, it might help Obama to remind people how partisan the 5 Republicans on the court are. They gave us Citizens United. And while there have been some changes to the membership, they are essentially the same 5 who appointed Bush President.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If they strike it down Obama should hit the court hard for being so blindingly partisan. Obviously packing the court isn't going to work, but he should definitely go after them for horrible rulings like Citizens United.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm so happy that on one day, one judge was able to make a decision that wasn't based on his/her politcal ideology. This is supposed to be how the system works. I know that liberals have also won key battles through unelected courts as well. Law is supposed to be made by elected officials.

Actually from what I've read in the opinion so far, it is very much about Robert's ideology. At his confirmation he stressed judicial restraint and opposed judicial activism. The opinion reflects that view in deferring to the legislature where he could.

*cough* Citizen's United *cough*