# SCOTUS's decision on The Health Care Law 6/28/12 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499 "2012-06-27T19:56:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/121 "2012-06-28T14:50:13Z")
So what are the implications of Roberts joining the majority? Is this signalling a “change of heart” of some sort, or just a ruling based on his reading of the law in this one case? And how about Kennedy joining the minority? I wish close cases were not so often made up of the same “sides” of justices. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/122 "2012-06-28T14:50:15Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > So if it is just a tax then how did the SCOTUS justify that it was ripe for a ruling? I thought they cannot rule on validity of a tax until it has been paid and challenged? I think they can’t issue an injunction against it until it is paid - saying it is OK is somewhat different? Also, I guess they aren’t ruling on if it’s a valid tax - just saying as a tax the law is constitutional, vs. the commerce clause. So that may be setting up the next challenge? ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/123 "2012-06-28T14:51:22Z")
> [@Mdcastleman](#): > > Coming next: “taxes” on buying hamburgers and brownies instead of tofu and broccoli. Or worse, they may decide to tax alcohol. Damn liberals. ETA: damn, ninjaed. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/124 "2012-06-28T14:54:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I wonder how soon we can expect apologies for calling Roberts a partisan hack who rules based on his corporate masters’’ will from the fringe left types? I reckon that will come right after the apologies for calling Obama a raving socialist who pisses on the Constitution by pushing blatantly unconstitutional laws. You may want to use leather gloves when handling that hypocrisy argument, it does cut both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/125 "2012-06-28T14:55:55Z")
While I do favor some (most) parts of the Health Care Law (i.e. insure kids to 26, cannot be dropped for expensive treatments, cannot be refused/charged more for pre-exisitng conditions, etc.), I’m curious about the slippery slope effects of the Individual Mandate. What’s to stop Congress now from passing a law from saying something like: [QUOTE=example law] All persons must purchase X(be it a GM car, broccoli, apples, etc), those who do not will be required to pay a $$$$ penalty. [/quote] Is this not the same thing as what was now upheld? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/126 "2012-06-28T14:56:45Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > And all **Bricker** sees in this decision is ‘liberal hypocrisy’. A rather sad myopia. And all you see in this is an excuse for a shot at **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/127 "2012-06-28T14:58:07Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > And all you see in this is an excuse for a shot at **Bricker**. And all you see is an excuse for a shot at **Canny Dan**. Ha HA! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/128 "2012-06-28T14:59:18Z")
> [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](#): > > What’s to stop Congress now from I’m stopping you right there, because the answer is, re-elections. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/129 "2012-06-28T14:59:30Z")
> [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](#): > > Is this not the same thing as what was now upheld? A tax provision which required you to buy a GM vehicle specifically would be a pretty difficult sell. As for the other stuff, sure. That’s why we have elections: so you can get rid of legislators who make you buy broccoli. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/130 "2012-06-28T14:59:33Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > I wonder how soon we should expect calls for the impeachment of Roberts from Tea Party types. > [@Bricker](#): > > I wonder how soon we can expect apologies for calling Roberts a partisan hack who rules based on his corporate masters’’ will from the fringe left types? > [@CannyDan](#): > > And all **Bricker** sees in this decision is ‘liberal hypocrisy’. A rather sad myopia. Why am I expected to ignore **Kolak of Twilo** ’s comment? Why did you? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/131 "2012-06-28T14:59:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I wonder how soon we can expect apologies for calling Roberts a partisan hack who rules based on his corporate masters’’ will from the fringe left types? I’ve always kind of liked Roberts, and distinctly remember being impressed by him at his confirmation. I’ve been disappointed by a few of his decisions, _Citizen’s United_ in particular, but he’s obviously a far cry from Scalia or Thomas. But I too, would like to see at least a small _mea culpa_ from some of the more vocal Roberts critics. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/132 "2012-06-28T14:59:50Z")
Gotta say I have gained a bit of respect for Roberts. A 5-4 ruling against would have destroyed the credibility of the Court. I believe he voted as he did to save the Court more than because of any principle. A disaster was narrowly averted, and Roberts gets the credit. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/133 "2012-06-28T15:00:42Z")
> [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](#): > > What’s to stop Congress now from passing a law from saying something like: The same thing that stops them from declaring war on Canada or raising income taxes to 95%. Elections. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/134 "2012-06-28T15:01:12Z")
> [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](#): > > While I do favor some (most) parts of the Health Care Law (i.e. insure kids to 26, cannot be dropped for expensive treatments, cannot be refused/charged more for pre-exisitng conditions, etc.), I’m curious about the slippery slope effects of the Individual Mandate. > > What’s to stop Congress now from passing a law from saying something like: > > “All persons must purchase X(be it a GM car, broccoli, apples, etc), those who do not will be required to pay a $$$$ penalty.” The same thing that stops them from taxing everyone at 100% rates and just taking everyones money, or using eminent domain to nationalize the nations swimming pools or making all federal funds to the States dependent on the governors wearing dunce caps. (on preivew, I’ve been ninja’d twice) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/135 "2012-06-28T15:01:14Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I reckon that will come right after the apologies for calling Obama a raving socialist who pisses on the Constitution by pushing blatantly unconstitutional laws. You may want to use leather gloves when handling that hypocrisy argument, it does cut both ways. Why are you directing this advice at me, and not at **Kolak of Twilo**? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/136 "2012-06-28T15:01:46Z")
> [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](#): > > While I do favor some (most) parts of the Health Care Law (i.e. insure kids to 26, cannot be dropped for expensive treatments, cannot be refused/charged more for pre-exisitng conditions, etc.), I’m curious about the slippery slope effects of the Individual Mandate. > > What’s to stop Congress now from passing a law from saying something like: > > Is this not the same thing as what was now upheld? I think the difference is that people are invariably involved in health care the way they are not with apples. The number of people alive in the U.S. that will not purchase something related to health care before they die is essentially zero. In this way, Congress is regulating commerce that is actively ongoing instead of forcing the creation of new commerce. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/137 "2012-06-28T15:01:54Z")
> [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](#): > > While I do favor some (most) parts of the Health Care Law (i.e. insure kids to 26, cannot be dropped for expensive treatments, cannot be refused/charged more for pre-exisitng conditions, etc.), I’m curious about the slippery slope effects of the Individual Mandate. > > What’s to stop Congress now from passing a law from saying something like: > > Is this not the same thing as what was now upheld? Only the taxpaying voters can stop Congress from passing such laws. If we don’t like what Congress is doing, we always have the option of electing different representatives. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/138 "2012-06-28T15:03:01Z")
Jesus Christ, people. Can we stop the partisan jabbering at **Bricker** and Roberts? There are perfectly good pit threads for that. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/139 "2012-06-28T15:04:17Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Gotta say I have gained a bit of respect for Roberts. A 5-4 ruling against would have destroyed the credibility of the Court. \*\*I believe he voted as he did to save the Court more than because of any principle. \*\* A disaster was narrowly averted, and Roberts gets the credit. So you think that Roberts is an unprincipled opportunist who is more concerned about his reputation than the law. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/140 "2012-06-28T15:04:28Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > So what are the implications of Roberts joining the majority? Is this signalling a “change of heart” of some sort, or just a ruling based on his reading of the law in this one case? And how about Kennedy joining the minority? > > I wish close cases were not so often made up of the same “sides” of justices. A very cynical interpretation… if ACA is to be scrapped, it’s preferable in terms of faith in government (not to mention the SCOTUS image) for it to be repealed outright by Congress rather than struck down by yet another familiar 5-4 SCOTUS decision along partisan lines. He knows a surviving ACA can be used as a bludgeon against Democrats in November, so it’s pretty reasonable to expect the wheels of democracy in an election year to do the right thing. But really, as bits and pieces are trickling in, it looks like he just read the law and applied it. To my great surprise, and I’m sure many others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=8)