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

[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.

[Folacin]

@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?

[fumster]

@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.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@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.

[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:

[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?

[Drunky_Smurf]

@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.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@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!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fool_in_the_Rain

What’s to stop Congress now from

I’m stopping you right there, because the answer is, re-elections.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@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.

[Bricker]

@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?

[Jas09]

@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.

[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.

[Jas09]

@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.

[Simplicio]

@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)

[Bricker]

@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?

[treis]

@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.

[doorhinge]

@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.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Jesus Christ, people. Can we stop the partisan jabbering at Bricker and Roberts? There are perfectly good pit threads for that.

[Terr]

@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.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@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.