Kennedy. He’s getting real tired of making all the decisions.
They’ll find another one.
Unintentional consequences are therefore…the federal government owes the insurers all monies paid by the insurers for services rendered to those newly covered by the statute, but should not have been paid because said statute was unconstitutional ab initio.
Could deciding the mandate is unconstitutional possibly take out Wickard and other decisions such as Raich? I think the mandate is constitutional and I actually don’t mind it (especially since it seems to be a paper tiger when you actually read the language) and if I were a justice I’d be afraid of taking a chainsaw to 70 years of caselaw on something that appears to be constitutional based on previous decisions.
It will be upheld, 6-3 with Scalia, Alito, and Thomas dissenting. Scalia gives hour long dissent speech, concludes by screaming “I just can’t take it anymore” and pulls out a gun and tries to shoot himself, missing far to the right.
If it is overturned, it will be because the government has failed to articulate any limiting principle for the commerce clause.
Nonetheless, l’ll be a pessimist and say upheld, 5-4: Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Roberts. Roberts’ opinion will provide the limiting principle the government’s case failed to; essentially a “here and no further” passage.
If they get to 6 that way, I agree she’d be it.
I’ll say the Court rules (5-4) that the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional but severable and the rest of the law stays. It doesn’t seem consistent with the way the Supreme Court and Congress have handled commerce for a couple of generations, but this is the Roberts Court. They don’t sweat the small stuff.
Heh, Nothing to add except I find it slightly amusing that I’m glued to the TV right now with the decision less than an hour away. CNN even has a count down clock!
I feel like I’m watching the Super Bowl of politics. The only thing missing is hot wings and a six pack of beer.
Well, that’s easily remedied. Completely medicinal, of course, and paid for by your insurance company!
Can you expand on this theory, please? I’d like some specifics about under what precise circumstance benefits were paid and under what theory of liability the government is responsible.
Agreed! I’m “watching” the Liveblog (http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/template=/altcast_code=9101ad5fcd/ipod=y).
OK, now they’re saying 10:17 AM EDT.
The blog just stated that Obama will likely be watching the news to get the breakdown of the ruling. One would think he’d just call SCOTUS and ask what happened.
I’m going to go with 7-2 the mandate is unconstitutional, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, Kagan and Breyer. However, only 5-4 that it is not severable and therefore the whole law is tossed out. I also predict that on the severability issue we will see the same thing as Bush v. Gore in that the Majority opinion and the dissent on this secondary issue will BOTH be partisan-driven.
They are going to issue a few other rulings first. That’s why the delay to 10:17 edt
Individual mandate struck down? Per Robin.
Breaking: Mandate found unconstitutional.
And Wickard still stands. Bricker is happy.
Scotusblog says it survives as a tax?
Well at least this won’t be confusing!