Affordable Care Act SCOTUS Decision--Live Thread

SCOTUSblog ^ | June 28, 2012 | SCOTUSblog

[John W]

Today is the day. SCOTUSblog live at 8:45 AM.

[daisy mae for the usa]

It is clear that you have a great capacity to justify. Good luck with that.

Hear me——

DO NOT continue to use the word bigot in reference to Christians who will not vote for Romney.

Understand?

An apology from you would be nice. But those who justify are rarely capable of such things.

[Leep]

In other words, unless Congress actually repeals the whole thing it appears to me that Obamacare will have its own funding mechanism built in.

---

I have not gleaned this anywhere. But didn’t all that change with this ruling?
The mandates stand but must go through Congress for funding and is not automatic (my word)?

[Stat Man]

“Yes, but that’s the way it’s always been if you think about it. The tax code has been used to punish and reward for decades now.”

Not to this degree. And also, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that using the tax code to punish behavior not approved by the government is Constitutional.

“At least the legislators have to stand up and call whatever they’re trying to do a tax and face the voters.”

No, this ruling seems to clearly be stating that they can lie to the voters and the Supreme Court, which doesn’t face the voters, will retroactively change it to a tax.

[kabar]

We will see how it plays in Peoria. There is no doubt that this is a victory for Obama. It legitimizes what should have been deemed unconstitutional. The Dems are stressing the advantages of Obamacare and the millions who have benefitted from them.

Essentially, SCOTUS has said that the taxing power of Congress trumps all, including our individual liberties.

[Oratam]

Isn’t this a poll tax (or head tax) payable by every adult? They rioted in Britain the last time this was tried.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Hadn’t got the vote detail before the post. I guess that with Wickard and whatever as accepted, Congress has authority to do anything now.”

---

On the contrary, five Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito) declared that the Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to pass the individual mandate, because Congress cannot force people to enter into commerce in order to claim the right to regulate such commerce. As Roberts wrote in his opinion, “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.” SCOTUS did not expand Commerce Clause jurisprudence here; in fact, it restricted most scholars’ (misguided) conception of what Congress could do under the Commerce Clause. In many ways, this was Lopez II.

What Roberts did was uphold Obamacare by pretending that there was no individual mandate, merely a tax on persons who choose not to buy health insurance (which would only have to be paid by people who would be federal taxpayers anyhow, and the amount of the tax would be lower than the cost of insurance and would depend on the person’s taxable income and deductions). Roberts said that the law’s penalty was really a tax, and that it was not so onerous as to have been a disguised penalty.

The most silver-hued lining of the mandate’s penalty being deemed a tax is that the “tax” presumably could be repealed in budget reconciliation, where the Democrats couldn’t filibuster. However, the GOP needs to win the Senate and the presidency back first.

And while I the provisions forcing insurers to accept persons with preexisting conditions, having children of insured persons stay on their parents’ policy until they turn 26, etc. perhaps can’t be repealed through reconciliation (at least it couldn’t under my interpretation of what constitutes a budgetary measure), I don’t think the Democrats would filibuster many of these repeals (least of all the preexisting-conditions mandate for insurers) if the “tax” that “encourages” (Roberts claims that it doesn’t “force” anyone to do anything) purchasing insurance is repealed through reconciliation. Repealing the tax would allow healthy people not to buy the mandated insurance, which would take away the income on which insurance companies were counting to offset the ridiculous costs they’ll bear by having to insure people for preexisting conditions, and pretty much would bankrupt every insurance company in America if several of those other provisions are not repealed as well. Insurance companies would not allow Democrats to filibuster the repeal of the preexisting conditions clause.

I must reiterate that we must hold the House and win back the Senate and—this cannot be underemphasized—the presidency. President Obama must be swept out of office, and Mitt Romney, for all his flaws and as much as I distrust him, is the only person with a working broom.

[Tennessee Nana]

Congresswoman Diane Black from TN

:)

[Windflier]

Face it folks. For America the Fat Lady has not only sung, she’s well into her 2nd encore.

So, are you going to write an opus before you off yourself, or was that it?

[snarkytart]

Rubio on Fox: “If you do not buy insurance the IRS ... is going to come after you.”
.
.

He’s correct, but again, this is nothing new. So many things we have to pay taxes on to fund government bs, and if we don’t pay we go to jail.

This is basically up to US and who we vote we send to DC. Elections matter..remember!! Repeal this sh*t!

[JediJones]

Yes, that would work. However, personally, I find it EASY “to believe that we can’t get enough of the public behind an anti-tax amendment to make it viable.” Since when have conservatives controlled 2/3 of both houses of Congress as well as 3/4 of the states?

It's a matter of getting enough of the public behind it to put pressure on enough of the softer Democrats to peel them off to our side. I think the right kind of anti-tax amendment would be as popular as the anti-gay marriage legislation is in the vast majority of the states.

[DoughtyOne]

Under Reagan there was work place enforcement, detention and deportation. The IRS made raids on businesses regularly.

Reagan stiffened the laws concerning businesses that hired illegals. He increased our agents on the border.

Reagan did not do something to increase illegal immigration. His amnesty would not have done that, if the bill he signed into law had been enforced.

George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama failed to do work place enforcement. They all signed off on allowing illegals to tap government services rather than deport.

Bush Jr. announced he was going to grant amnesty to millions of illegals, and the numbers went wild. He had nobody but his daddy on down to blame for what ails us today.

Reagan did his best to stop an infinitesimal flow of immigrants, something he saw as a big problem even at that rate.

Immigration had not been addressed for thirty years prior to Reagan. He was assured there were only 1 million illegals in country, symbolic of a flow of around 33,000 per year. Even at that rate, he wanted it stopped.

If the bill he signed had been enforced, it would have stopped. Illegals would not have been able to work here. The flow would have remained low due to that. The border force we had would have been equal to the task.

Reagan did not sign off on no inland enforcement.

Reagan did not sign off on illegal immigrants getting government aide.

Reagan did no sign off on employers being able to hire all the illegals they wanted to with impunity.

Blaming him for what is taking place today, is not reasoned.

[DoughtyOne]

Indeed! Very creepy...

[rottndog]

If they passed the bill in its’ entirety through reconciliation, they can repeal the in its’ entirety through reconciliation.

It just requires sufficient testicular fortitude of at least 51 senators.

[Stat Man]

“Roberts has said, in so many words, Obamacare’s soft underbelly is that it’s a tax. Meaning Congress can have at it. It’s a creature of Congress, they can unmake it in like kind.
Like Paul544 just said, ‘Congress could, in theory, pass a tax code revision that says the penalty for not having insurance is $1.’”

Big deal. Congress already could, in theory, repeal the law. The problem is that Roberts has said, in so many words, Congress can force us to do anything they want, so long as the penalty for non-compliance is a tax.

[Darnright]

>The single payer system was the goal from the beginning. This decision paves the way. Socialized medicine is just around the corner.<

You’ll get no argument from me.

[Damifino]

Elections no longer matter - if we elect 100% of the folks we like, it doesn’t matter, the rules of this country have changed forever. This is not fixable with an election. This is a very sad day.

[JediJones]

The mandate may sound scarier, but the bigger immediate problem in the law is the expansion of the Medicaid/welfare entitlement. These people are exempt from the mandate and will be taking money out, not paying in. This just expands the problem that’s already killing us, with a lot more people taking more money out of the government than is being paid in. Since the states are doing it, we’ll probably see a lot more taxes go up on the state level to pay for that, burdening the taxpayer still more.

[Stat Man]

Excellent post. Too many people here aren’t getting this yet.

[patriotspride]

I am thinking that what the SC said is that it could be held valid as a tax, but would need to be re-written and passed by Congress. I’m not sure I’m right, but, if this is so good luck passing a new tax in Congress in an election year.

`````````````````

Had the same opinion. Would like to see it stated clearly as “ it could be held valid as a tax, but would need to be re-written and passed by Congress”

That takes all the spin out of the ruling, and hopefully is what Roberts really agreed to.

Time will tell if our representatives have the courage to address it that way

[daisy mae for the usa]

Thank you!

:-)