SCOTUS's decision on The Health Care Law 6/28/12

[Iggy]

And the Supreme Court website is just returning server errors. OVERLOADED in the extreme.

[Czarcasm]

Medicaid expansion struck down.

[XT]

CNN has Mandate Struck Down and High court finds measure unconstitutional on their home page…wtf?

-XT

[jackdavinci]

Wow wildly varying reports.

[Jas09]

The Chief was the deciding vote to save the ACA, apparently.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Jonathan_Chance

Is it typical to decide on a point other than that discussed? I never really covered the court.

No, but this was the government’s second argument. The Court can consider arguments not raised, though (much to my surprise following Heller).

[Jonathan_Chance]

@XT

CNN has Mandate Struck Down and High court finds measure unconstitutional on their home page…wtf?

-XT

Dewey defeats Truman. CNN looks like dumbasses.

[John_Mace]

@Jas09

The Chief was the deciding vote to save the ACA, apparently.

Kennedy was on the other side?

[duality72]

From ScotusBlog:

Amy Howe: The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Did NOT see that coming.

[Jas09]

That’s what SCOTUSBlog is saying, it seems. Their latest quote from the mandate portion of the decision:

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

[XT]

lol…now CNN has: Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama’s signature health care law.

-XT

[Czarcasm]

NEW CNN HEADLINE:

Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama’s signature health care law.

What the hell are they smoking?

[Kozmik]

@Jonathan_Chance

Dewey defeats Truman. CNN looks like dumbasses.

NYT won’t though. (headline / story on tomorrow’s front page)

@Czarcasm

NEW CNN HEADLINE: What the hell are they smoking?

Apparently, the SCOTUS brief.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

WaPo just said (paraphrased), “BREAKING: SUPREME COURT RULES IN HEALTH CARE CASE” Looks like they wanted to get their ducks in a row.

Last year at some point I posted around here about how the mandate just looked to me like a tax, and somebody sneered at me about how I can’t just call something by a different name and presto it’s constitutional. I kind of want to find that post, so I can say, “Neener neener!”

[Jas09]

And yeah, 5-4 with the Chief siding with the left against Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

Interesting days, indeed…

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

NEW CNN HEADLINE: What the hell are they smoking?

They must have tried to scoop everyone by posting that as soon as they saw that the IM is not constitutional under the commerce clause, forgetting to read the next sentence (or wherever the tax idea waS).

[Trom]

Here’s what I’ve got from the newswires:

Reuters reporting Roberts, joined by two justices, says medicaid expansion violates constitution

Headlines that Justices reject a group of 26 states challenge to Health-Care Law Expansion

Reuters reporting Chief Justice Roberts says mandate may be upheld as within congress’ taxing power

Reuters reporting that Chief justice Roberts says mandate is not a valid exercise of congress’ power under commerce clause and necessary and proper clause

Reuters reporting 4 justices dissent, saying the patient protection and affordable care act goes beyond congressional powers under constitution
Dissenting justices include Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

[John_Mace]

@Jas09

And yeah, 5-4 with the Chief siding with the left against Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

Interesting days, indeed…

Wow, that’s more interesting than the ruling itself!

[Jas09]

Sounds like on Medicaid expansion that states can refuse the expansion funds and conditions, and if they do the Feds must still give them their current funding with existing rules. It will be interesting to see what states, if any, take them up on this offer.