Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Thinking Skins]

CNN is so funny.

[Kilmer17]

Make no mistake, had this been struck down (or a portion of it), the conservatives here and afar would have yapped us to death about how this was evidence of Obama's failure and eventual defeat.

Now that they lost, it means little, apparently.

And vice versa.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, so Roberts also specifically ruled that there is no power under the interstate commerce clause to compel someone into commerce.

Now, let's be clear about this: that portion of his opinion is not the majority opinion, it is merely his findings. That may carry a lot of weight in the future, and it is an important opinion because HE puts some limits on interstate commerce clause. But, in this case, it appears there is no holding as to whether the interstate commerce clause can compel people into commerce....

more to come as i read through this.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I hate these kinds of decisions by the way. The law has been broken up piece by piece with various justices forming weird coalitions on different parts. I'm not quite sure what has happene with Medicaid spending yet. I need a drink.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

LKB, maybe you are further along, but did 5 justices agree that interstate commerce clause cannot compel people into commerce?

[FanboyOf91]

Roberts continues his worship of the Executive Branch.

[greenspandan]

Make no mistake, had this been struck down (or a portion of it), the conservatives here and afar would have yapped us to death about how this was evidence of Obama's failure and eventual defeat.

Now that they lost, it means little, apparently.

i'm on obama's side, and i agree that it will make little difference in the polls.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

From Roberts:

A tax on going without health insurance does not fall

within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a

capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person,

“without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)

(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not

obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly

not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property.

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax

that must be apportioned among the several States.

[Kilmer17]

LKB, maybe you are further along, but did 5 justices agree that interstate commerce clause cannot compel people into commerce?

I read it that way as well.

[Wrong Direction]

CNN got it ****ing wrong.

(I've been good about not swearing for the last month' date=' but considering I sent an email to some colleagues based on the CNN report, I'm really angry).[/quote']

Ehhh. I suspect they were sitting in the court when the cleark said something like "the mandate is not upheld under the commerce clause."

They tweeted.

Then the clerk said, "but....it is upheld under taxing authority."

They said, oh crap, and immediately re-tweeted.

So, they just jumped the gun, probably at the amusement of the court.

[The Tris]

For conservatives overreacting, I found view from the scotusblog this interesting:

The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

[greenspandan]

I suspect Roberts joined the left on the court so he could write the opinion and thus include language that is more limiting than the other justices might have otherwise included.

no, that doesn't make sense. his was the deciding vote. he could have just as easily struck it down 5 to 4 if he didn't like it.

[Prosperity]

Ok, so Roberts also specifically ruled that there is no power under the interstate commerce clause to compel someone into commerce.

Now, let's be clear about this: that portion of his opinion is not the majority opinion, it is merely his findings. That may carry a lot of weight in the future, and it is an important opinion because HE puts some limits on interstate commerce clause. But, in this case, it appears there is no holding as to whether the interstate commerce clause can compel people into commerce....

more to come as i read through this.

Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia agree w/ Roberts that the commerce clause cant compel people into commerce.

So the Supreme Court DID hold that

[SnyderShrugged]

From Roberts:

A tax on going without health insurance does not fall

within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a

capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person,

“without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)

(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not

obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly

not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property.

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax

that must be apportioned among the several States.

Is that saying that 100% of Americans will pay the tax regardless of income then?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Sounds like Ginsburg went after Roberts for ruling in the negative on the commerce clause question if he was going to rule in the affirmative on the tax question. She has a good point....

[Wrong Direction]

Ok, so Roberts also specifically ruled that there is no power under the interstate commerce clause to compel someone into commerce.

Now, let's be clear about this: that portion of his opinion is not the majority opinion, it is merely his findings. That may carry a lot of weight in the future, and it is an important opinion because HE puts some limits on interstate commerce clause. But, in this case, it appears there is no holding as to whether the interstate commerce clause can compel people into commerce....

more to come as i read through this.

Interesting.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Is that saying that 100% of Americans will pay the tax regardless of income then?

No. Its saying the opposite: that the tax is a tax on people who have enough income and no insurance.

[Kilmer17]

no, that doesn't make sense. his was the deciding vote. he could have just as easily struck it down 5 to 4 if he didn't like it.

Not if Kennedy was voting with the liberals.

[JMS]

Make no mistake, had this been struck down (or a portion of it), the conservatives here and afar would have yapped us to death about how this was evidence of Obama's failure and eventual defeat.

Now that they lost, it means little, apparently.

What you are talking about is spin. If Obama wins he should spin it as good for him, If he had lost likewise he would have spun it as good for him; cause the nation needs healthcare reform and Obama's still the only guy with a viable plan.

Just like the GOP declaires victory either way...

I don't think this ruling will have an effect on the november election. It hurts him as much as it helps him, weather he won or not.. Ultimately and interestingly Mitt has turned a proclivity to flip flopping to his advantage. Now whenever he speaks people think he's just saying what he has to say, and that he "really" believes in their position... As such the election ceases to have anything to do with Romney. The election is entirely shapping up as a mandate in favor or against Obama. Like him or hate him.

[Wrong Direction]

no, that doesn't make sense. his was the deciding vote. he could have just as easily struck it down 5 to 4 if he didn't like it.

If he strikes it down, he doesn't get to decide who writes the opinion. He votes with the majority so he gets to write the opinion.

[JimboDaMan]

This ruling wont have any affect at all on the POTUS race. It may help mobilize some voters in right leaning districts in Congressional races, but just taking them from "likely GOP" to "Safe GOP".

Good grief.

What you say is surely true, some undecideds will move further right. But others will reflect on the absolute hysteria from the right about the unconstitutionality of the law and realize these people are perhaps not what they wish to follow.

If nothing else, this will increase pressure on Romney and the Republicans to come up with specific alternatives. "Repeal and replace" kind of went away in recent months while the GOP hoped the Supremes would carry their water. Now they'll have to fight the ACA as policy and that will be much harder to do without the "replace" part of the mantra. Be interesting to see what they come up with.

[SnyderShrugged]

No. Its saying the opposite: that the tax is a tax on people who have enough income and no insurance.

I misread it as saying is was a capitation rather than not a capitation. You are correct

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

LKB, maybe you are further along, but did 5 justices agree that interstate commerce clause cannot compel people into commerce?

The first ten or so pages are just the slip. Roberts agreed that the interstate commerce clause cannot compel people into commerce. I imagine Kennedy plus the other three agree.

[greenspandan]

Not if Kennedy was voting with the liberals.

Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion.

[JimboDaMan]

If he strikes it down, he doesn't get to decide who writes the opinion. He votes with the majority so he gets to write the opinion.

But he'd have been with the majority either way.