In a 5 to 4 vote with Roberts swinging it the bill was upheld.
I thought Roberts was a conservative voted in by Bush?
I think Obama secretly applied massive pressure to get it upheld and in the future this will come out. He totally intervened with the judicial process and this will be an Obamagate if there ever was one.....
What do you think?
To the opening poster: How does the president of the US pressure the US Supreme Court? It cannot be done. Why can you not understand that (a) the Supreme Court justices are independent of the executive branch of government, they are appointed for life, can be removed only for high crimes and misdemeanors, e.g., accepting bribes, and (b) sometimes intelligent people (such as you, me and the justices of the Supreme Court) can in good faith see things differently. A majority of the court (4 appointed by Democratic president, one appointed by a Republican president) found the Affordable Care Act (sometimes called "Obamacare") constitutional. Get over it.
Like Romney & Bohener said -they will repeal it. Go Conservatives or at least if they aren't conservatives -Go Repubs!
I wish someone can explain in plain English what this is all about.
Mandates.. provisions..
will my premiums go up or down?
will Obama pay some of my monthly premiums?
Nfgo3 is right. In addition, it's important to keep in mind that Obamacare is basically the same as Romneycare, and the individual mandate was originally proposed by conservatives and libertarians in the 80s or 90s. Conservative Republicans proposed something similar back in the 90s when President Clinton almost passed universal health care. Ironically, everyone agrees that if the government simply passed Canada-style health care (Medicare for all), there would be no constitutional problem with it at all. even though it's much closer to real "socialized" medicine. It has to do with which section of the constitution is at issue.
As an attorney who has read numerous state and federal supreme court decisions, I can tell you that a supreme court justice's political preferences do not always predict which side they vote for in a case. For example, Justice Scalia often votes with the liberal justices on 6th Amendment issues, and Justice Breyer (a hard core liberal) often votes with the conservative justices in the same 6th Amendment cases.
yytz - what are 6th Amendment issues?
Nechomah, the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes a "Confrontation Clause" guaranteeing defendants in criminal cases the right to confront witnesses against them (by cross-examining them in court during the trial). For a long time Supreme Court precedent allowed states to get around this rule in various ways. Recent Supreme Court decisions, always with Justice Scalia in the majority, have strengthened confrontation clause rights. For example, if you get caught with what the police believe are illegal drugs and a forensic analyst issues a report saying the substance is cocaine, they used to be able to admit that into evidence even though the technician who did the analysis did not testify (and so the defendant's attorney could not ask him questions about the test). Now, they have to produce the analyst to testify. This is important because many forensic tests are negligently or fraudulently conducted -- which has led to many innocent people being convicted (even of serious crimes like rape and murder).
@Nechomah i believe yytz is referring to scalia and breyer's views on the 6th amendment which is the right to due process which includes things like the right to confront your accuser, laws governing sentencing, juries etc. with some spillover into the 4th amendment in regards to search and seizure.
@2scents your premiums were going up no matter what happened
@nfgo3 of course politics and the president influence the courts decision albeit indirectly. If you want a good book on the subject read - Lee Epstein and Jack Knight, The Choices Justices Make. This was a textbook for one of my classes.
@yytz the individual mandate actually was ruled unconstitutional by a majority of the court - it only survived as a tax. i fail to understand how they could have ruled on the case because no one had standing because the tax never happened yet which is precisely why Verrilli argued it was not a tax - this points to an evolving position on the part of Roberts. I think this was a brilliant move by Roberts as he doesn't get into an altercation with Obama and maintains the courts position as a ruling body while creating an environment where it would take only 51 votes in the senate to overturn the individual mandate and possibly the whole law.
JBaldy, a majority of the court found that the individual mandate would not be constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but that it is constitutional, after all, under the government's taxing power. That doesn't mean they "found it unconstitutional" -- they found that it was constitutional. That said, the Commerce Clause aspect of the ruling does represent a victory for those who want the Commerce Clause to be more narrowly read in general (ie, libertarians and state's-rights people). As to the standing issue, in the state where I practice, once a law has been passed, anyone with an interest in the matter has standing to ask courts to rule it is unconstitutional. I haven't read the whole decision, but I assume they explain the standing issues.
@yytz if the individual mandate is a tax it isnt really an individual mandate.
also the problem with standing would be the Tax Anti-Injunction Act
Jbaldy: It's still the same individual mandate; the law is still going to be enforced as originally written. The Court upheld it as constitutional because for all practical purposes the fine for noncompliance was equivalent to a tax (if you don't want to pay the "tax," buy health care.) It's a way of interpreting the mandate (following the principle that statutes are presumed to be constitutional and are interpreted as constitutional if at all possible); it doesn't actually change the law. About the Anti-Injunction Act, read the opinion and you'll see what the Court said about that.
The tea party knew it for what it was all along
NO TAXATION W/O REPRESENTATION
in the words of Nancy Pelosi "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"
TAX
nfgo3 and the rest of you;
Could it be that Obama was totally uninvolved and this is simply how the cookie crumbled? Perhaps. But I think you are being a little naive to believe that it is totally unrealistic to say that Obama (secretly)applied some form of pressure or blackmail to get at least one of the conservatives to vote with the liberals.
And here is why. There is no question that if it would get struck down then that would be a terrible blow to Obama and could make him lose the election. He placed such a heavy emphasis on this thing (its obamacare!) as did the country that it could topple him. Why do you think its insane that he did some subtle arm-twisting or sweetening of the deal for Roberts? This could cost him the election for crying out loud!
Yes its a different branch of government....so what? You think no politician ever greased the palms or blackmailed or what have you.. a judge or justice or some aspect of the legal system? common.
Nixon did illegal things. Didn't he?
What about Clinton? Lying under oath is illegal.
If a man has no God he will stop at nothing. Obama has no God. He stands for taxing us to death, illegals, gays, "a woman's right to choose" (baby slaying) and every other Godless thing.
Yes I think he played dirty.
What's going to happen?
Well, health insurance will be more expensive, so we will have less money to pay tuition. Since we have less money to pay, tuition will go up, and will be too much for ever increasing numbers in our community.
Most Americans will have a harder time getting a doctor when they need it. However, the yidden will be ok on that score, since חברך חברא אית ליה.
Nu, nu. G-d decides how much money we'll have. Apparently He doesn't want us to have much. Let's all go back to kollel. (No, really. The amount of money you need to earn to break even once you're off tuition scholarships for kollel guys and govt programs, pretty much assures that for most people it will never be worth it to leave.)
@yytz just read it - you buy this congress never intended it to be a tax but its a tax business to determine standing? this is even further than Verrilli was taking it. also i disagree with you in regards to the mandate, as a mandate and a tax are governed differently the biggest example is that the republicans would only need a simple majority to overturn it - no filibusters allowed. if the republicans win the senate and keep the house the individual mandate will be gone. this is not an unlikely prospect considering that the democrats are defending a lot more seats than the republicans are. a mandate would require a filibuster proof 60 votes which would probably be unattainable. Roberts gave the republicans a powerful tool with which to strike down the mandate and possibly the law as a whole if they didnt include a severability clause which as far as i know is absent from the law. There is no way that Roberts is not well aware of this fact.
From YWN:
Insurance Industry Warns Of Higher Rates, As ObamaCare Supporters See Long-Term Fix
(Thursday, June 28th, 2012)
President Obama says the health care law makes coverage more affordable, but the insurance industry reacted to the Supreme Court decision by saying that the ruling will actually end up raising rates even more than they have climbed since the law was enacted.
America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s lobby group, issued a statement supporting expanding health care coverage to millions of Americans, but it said, “major provisions, such as the premium tax, will have unintended consequences of raising costs and disrupting coverage unless they are addressed.”
The group’s CEO, Karen Ignagni, told Fox News that because of the increased costs, “It’s time for people to roll up their sleeves and look very carefully at those provisions.”
The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group, has said that the average family insurance premium in 2011 topped $15,000 — a 9 percent increase from the year before, while premiums had climbed just 3 percent a year before the law went into effect.
AETNA, the nation’s fourth largest insurer, says its polices increased from 1 to 2 percent.
“Three percent is a material increase,” said Ignagni, who cited the legislation’s premium tax. “That is one example of provision embedded in the legislation that will work in the wrong direction than consumer expectations.”
But others claimed the law eventually will lower insurance premiums because of the large pool of Americans who will be covered. The group FamilesUSA called the decision, “a clear, unambiguous and complete victory for long-overdue health care reform.”
The group also cited the creation of state health insurance exchanges, which will give consumers choices of insurance plans. It also said the new insurance company regulations help consumers.
“No one will be denied health coverage or charged a discriminatory premium due to a pre-existing condition, such as children with asthma or diabetes … People with major health problems, like those in car accidents, will be protected against arbitrary lifetime or annual limits in how much insurance companies will pay for needed care,” the group said.
“The premiums paid for family health care rise by more than a thousand dollars simply to pay for the costs that have not been paid by the uninsured,” Ron Pollack, the executive director of FamliesUSA, told Fox News. “So as those people get coverage, our premiums will go down.”
Pollack added, “Anybody who tells us that health reform is unaffordable is smoking something, because of the heart of health reform is to make our system a whole lot more efficient and effective. And when you make it more efficient and effective, it helps to bring premiums down.”
AHIP counters claims that premiums will decrease. It cited an Urban Institute study that shows insurance premiums for singles policyholders, who are 18 to 34 years old, will increase by $1,400, from $3,600 to $5,000 a year.
Policyholders who are 35 to 44 years old will see a lesser increase, by $800 — from $4,200 to the same $5,000 rate per year.
Click HERE to read comments from the YWN Main Page
1. All that was upheld was a single aspect - that a tax can be levied on people who don't carry government approved insurance. They also threw out the part that states are required to expand Medicaid. The other aspects of the law weren't involved and may be litigated later. If health care is not "interstate commerce" it isn't clear how much of Obamacare will survive.
2. The Supreme Court seriously restricted the use of the Commerce Clause to expand federal control, which may throw many other aspects of "Obamacare" into question. They also seriously restricted federal mandates to the states, raising serious questions on many federal programs.
3. One can argue that Roberts managed to smile pleasantly while stabbing the liberals in the back. The approval of the Obamacare tax is hard to defend politically, can be changed easily in the future - and in return they lost much of their ability to regulate day to day life.
4. Given that Roberts is under 50, and has life tenure, he'll probably be Chief Justice for the next 20 years, whereas Obama is likely to be an obscure professor trying to keep busy after next January (or January 2017 at the latest). Roberts really isn't subject to much pressure.
What's the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare?
jewishness: you are pulling the classic conspiracy theory card- calling those who disagree with you naive. Unfortunately you are the one who is naive. Do you really think the President of the US blackmailed the Chief Justice of the United Staes?! Blackmail?! Really?! We can come up with many rational theories as to why Roberts came out with the ruling that he did. (maybe he actually believes it's a tax- i know that's just me being naive)But to say that he was blackmailed is just foolish. Anyone who knows anything about Justice Roberts (and I get the feeling you don't) knows he is a stand-up individual. He said at his confirmation hearings that his job as Supreme Court Justice would be to call balls and strikes, come up with narrow rulings, not overturn precedent, and try to find laws constitutional. That is exactly what he did, there's no need to resort to childish conspiracy theories.
PS I happen to vehemently disagree with Roberts on the tax issue, but that doesn't mean I have to throw all rationality out the window.
Yaakov- Constitutionally, there's a big difference. State governements have the power to pretty much do anything. There's no question that Romneycare is constitutional. Policywise, you're right there's not much of a difference; as much as Romney likes to pretend there is.
You must log in to post.
RSS