NFIB vs Sebelius

I'm 50 pages in, This decision will have permanent effects limiting Congressional over-reach and attempts at usurpation of power. Roberts saved us. I'm really impressed, but given that I've never read one of these in full, I'm sure that's not a surprise.

I can't believe that Roberts got Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor to sign on to this. This is a strict interpretation, an arguably "original meaning" decision. Any thoughts?

(BTW, Roberts decision is only 69 pages)


EDIT - the views shared by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan in their opinion are truly horrifying in their interpretation of Federal power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I'm 50 pages in, This decision will have permanent effects limiting Congressional over-reach and attempts at usurpation of power. Roberts saved us. I'm really impressed, but given that I've never read one of these in full, I'm sure that's not a surprise.

I can't believe that Roberts got Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor to sign on to this. This is a strict interpretation, an arguably "original meaning" decision. Any thoughts?

(BTW, Roberts decision is only 69 pages)


EDIT - the views shared by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan in their opinion are truly horrifying in their interpretation of Federal power.

---

Cloud, meet silver lining

I don't think Roberts "got" anyone to sign onto this. You say it as if they were tricked. They all pretty much said individul mandate was not covered under Commerce, and they split at the tax issue. I would have preferred NO on the tax issue for reasons I won't get in to, but at least they shot down the Commerce argument

Roberts didn't screw conservatives, and Kennedy didn't screw liberals.

This wasn't a decision that was made overnight. So many people and this "us vs them" attitude. I can't figure out what is worse, my idiot conservative friends saying they are fed up and moving to Canada (home of socialized healthcare) or my idiot liberal friends who don't understand that this ruling has major caveats attached to it.

The most interesting thing is the implicit admission that:

A: Obama's principle of providing affordable healthcare is a good one.

and

B: This would have been better provided for via taxes

Which leads us to

C: US Healthcare provision is dumb.

You are correct. All this smoke and mirrors, yet a similar and quicker end result would have come had it just been set up as a single-payer deduction like SS and Medicaid. So much easier than shopping for insurance and dealing with commercial providers, but ultimately an admission that SS and Medicaid are failing models that cannot adequately compensate doctors/pharm for costs "incurred." So we get this

The insurance lobby was strong in this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

You are correct. All this smoke and mirrors, yet a similar and quicker end result would have come had it just been set up as a single-payer deduction like SS and Medicaid. So much easier than shopping for insurance and dealing with commercial providers, but ultimately an admission that SS and Medicaid are failing models that cannot adequately compensate doctors/pharm for costs "incurred." So we get this

The insurance lobby was strong in this one.

---

I haven't read the judgement, but I noted also that the main complaint of the Conservative Justices was that people were being forced to buy from the Private sector.

A further admission that America would be better off with a public option. I recall that was in the original Bill but was dropped.

Seems to me, that's what the Dems should really have been fighting for.

But they are not "forced" if the penalty is understood as a tax and is not enough money to coerce. They essentially increased taxes and then allow a deduction for having health care. Its minimally different from the government having a tax "penalty" for people deciding to not get married.

btw, the other 4 Liberal justices wanted the mandate to be updeld according to commerce. Read their join opinion concurring with Roberts in parts. Those people scare the crap out of me. This decision is a very good one for the balance of power, it provides more clout to the will of the peoples representatives in congress over the supreme court. The proof will be in the pudding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I haven't read the judgement, but I noted also that the main complaint of the Conservative Justices was that people were being forced to buy from the Private sector.

A further admission that America would be better off with a public option. I recall that was in the original Bill but was dropped.

Seems to me, that's what the Dems should really have been fighting for.

---

A solution would be to have charities enter as players and undercut the costs of the current incumbents. Given how much the health service costs per capita to practically everywhere else on the planet a non-private option would grow over time.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

A solution would be to have charities enter as players and undercut the costs of the current incumbents. Given how much the health service costs per capita to practically everywhere else on the planet a non-private option would grow over time.

~:smoking:

---

Honestly - I think the only solution is for things to get SO bad that there is cross party consensus on tax-funded basic healthcare, like everywhere else in the Western world.

I guess the US just didn't suffer enough during WWII for the Unions and the Churches to put aside their differences and make that common cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

tax-funded basic healthcare, like everywhere else in the Western world.

---

I live in a Republican-majority county, and have been indecently amused by people saying "I'm gonna move to X." No matter what country they name, it has universal healthcare. Hence the funny.

Honestly, just get over it and join the Soviet bloc already...

Also, I find all the whining about "communism" in regards to socialized healthcare. The western european welfare state is NOT founded on communism, but rather people like Schumpeter, who developed an economic theory in response to communism(and 18th century liberalism).

In other words, the republicans are fighting an anti-communist system. That makes them anti-anti-communists. Enter the law of double negatives, and we see that the reoublicans are actually communist!!

Dirty red bastards!

Just as with the hilarious over-reaction by leftists to Governor Walker's recall victory, I am getting much amusement from right-wing overreaction to this ruling. I've linked to it elsewhere, but it's too funny not to link again:

A Children's Treasury of Wingnut Obamacare Freakouts.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...dofamerica.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I live in a Republican-majority county, and have been indecently amused by people saying "I'm gonna move to X." No matter what country they name, it has universal healthcare. Hence the funny.

---

Just imagine the giggles we get over here.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg411...pg&res=landing

How isn't this tax running afoul of the bill of attainder prohibition? If you have employer coverage, you're fine. If you don't, you have to buy coverage- if not, you get a special "tax"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

A further admission that America would be better off with a public option. I recall that was in the original Bill but was dropped.

---

Dropped because it was widely opposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Dropped because it was widely opposed.

---

See my point "C" above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I'm 50 pages in, This decision will have permanent effects limiting Congressional over-reach and attempts at usurpation of power. Roberts saved us. I'm really impressed, but given that I've never read one of these in full, I'm sure that's not a surprise.

I can't believe that Roberts got Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor to sign on to this. This is a strict interpretation, an arguably "original meaning" decision. Any thoughts?

(BTW, Roberts decision is only 69 pages)


EDIT - the views shared by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan in their opinion are truly horrifying in their interpretation of Federal power.

---

The argument making the rounds now is that the parts of the Roberts opinion about the commerce clause is non-binding dicta. The case wasn't decided on the commerce clause, so therefore his comments on the commerce clause are not part of the ruling. Ginsberg pretty much says as much in her opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The argument making the rounds now is that the parts of the Roberts opinion about the commerce clause is non-binding dicta. The case wasn't decided on the commerce clause, so therefore his comments on the commerce clause are not part of the ruling. Ginsberg pretty much says as much in her opinion.

---

It was Robert's vote that decided the case however, so in all likeliness his arguments will be respected, including the striking down of the commerce clause argument. Also since the SCOTUS is conservative leaning, I don't think they will be running with Ginsberg's argument any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The argument making the rounds now is that the parts of the Roberts opinion about the commerce clause is non-binding dicta. The case wasn't decided on the commerce clause, so therefore his comments on the commerce clause are not part of the ruling. Ginsberg pretty much says as much in her opinion.

---

It has also been said that the court overturned the decision of the lower court to uphold the law based on the commerce clause. The arguments were not dicta but, binding and stare decisis by that standard. There is no silver bullet for the liberal justices, there will always be people who want to tear the constitution in one direction and others who want to tear it in another. And there will be people attempting to moderate those approaches. Life goes on and so does struggle. Endless abuses of the commerce clause have been weakened by this decision and that seems to be a fact. The power to tax was also further limited to prevent taxes from crossing the line into penalties. This is a great consolation. The Obama "reversal" on Religious liberties was not a consolation because it was a meaningless change. This is substantial because it will effect the arguments of Justices for years to come.

Ginsburg's opinion was not backed by the majority of the court. Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito also said a bunch of stuff in their dissent, but Robert's argument was a historical one that will be taught to law classes.

I hope that at least the economic competitiveness argument the bill's supporters have been pushing pans out. Although the law in its current form has virtually nonexistent cost controls and will apparently just shift the rapidly growing healthcare costs to the public at large instead of individuals. Silver linings...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...on_for_decline

If the bill had called it a tax, it never would have passed. Congress is truly worthless, is there any power they aren't willing to give up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The ability to increase their own pay?

---

I doubt they'll give up on their power to hire escorts either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Endless abuses of the commerce clause have been weakened by this decision and that seems to be a fact.

---

The bottom line of the case is that the law was upheld by the authority of the federal government's taxation power. Roberts argued in his opinion that the tax power only came into play because the commerce clause failed- but why? Why does the commerce clause come into play at all if the law is otherwise Constitutionally sound? This all leaves more than enough wiggle room for future courts to ignore the commerce clause parts of the opinion as a footnote.

Quote:

---

The power to tax was also further limited to prevent taxes from crossing the line into penalties.

---

How so?

Quote:

---

Robert's argument was a historical one that will be taught to law classes.

---

I'm not so sure.
When I first heard the ruling I was excited that at least the often abused commerce clause was walked back some, but after some thinking/reading more I don't really think that's the case.

Did you read the opinion? It states that the vague line protecting Americans from being compelled to do or not do something was not crossed due to the variance between the tax and the cost of actually purchasing insurance. It determined that, because the tax was so insignificant in relation to the cost of insurance that it did not constitute compulsion. My statement "The power to tax was also further limited to prevent taxes from crossing the line into penalties." means that the decision entrenched the idea that there is a limit on the Federal government's ability to tax you to the point of compulsion; A point at which a tax goes beyond the scope of the enumerated power to tax and becomes a penalty or a force that is not appropriate and reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.

It would be much easier for you to understand if you read the opinion. 69 pages, about as plainly written as any I've ever read. It is genius in it's simplicity. I won't do it justice because I am not a supreme court justice.

No words by a few people will ever stop the people who don't view the constitution/Federalism as important from attempting to decimate the idea's power within our system. The decision by Roberts shows you how he feels about Federalism and gives you a view of his interpretation of Congressional and SCOTUS authority.

Try to give the editorials a rest until you've read the opinion and you will be much less worried about it. If you listen to what the talking heads are saying afterward, I would be suprised if you don't stop giving some of them much credit in the future. (like Chris Matthews or Ruch Limbaugh for example, as if anyone gives those guys credit)


ALSO - the idea that the Supreme Court has an positive obligation to attempt to uphold congressional decisions based on the Constitution if possible rather than a negative obligation to err on the side of the plaintiff is very important for the future of laws enacted by the Representatives of the people.


"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threateningexisting Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcingthose limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
It is so ordered."

These were the final 2 paragraphs of the opinion that were ordered in response to the 2 questions presented to the Court. The commerce clause language is not Dicta but binding language; the "dicta" is just an arguement that Progressives who hate Federalism are suggesting in future attacks on the balance of power as well as what Conservatives who hate progressives are spreading; because they all like an evil Socialist/capitalist conspiracy to keep the rank and file angry/hopeful. The rest of use just want the Feds to do what they are supposed to to and the States to do what they are supposed to do and leave us alone whenever possible.

In watching this pre-ruling interview with fmr Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, I decided to read a short blurb about the concept of "Constitutional Avoidance" and the "Ashwander Rules". What do you think about them, Xiahou?

According to Salon, Roberts wrote both the majority opinion and the dissent. To summarize, Roberts initially joined the conservative justices and assigned himself the writing of the majority opinion. Much later, says Salon, Roberts changed his vote and then assigned himself that opinion as well- leaving the dissenters scrambling to write their dissent....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salon

This source insists that the claim that the joint dissent was drafted from scratch in June is flatly untrue. Furthermore, the source characterizes claims by Crawford’s sources that “the fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention [sic] Roberts’ majority … was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him” as “pure propagandistic spin,” meant to explain away the awkward fact that while the first 46 pages of the joint dissent never even mention Roberts’ opinion for the court (this is surely the first time in the court’s history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting), the last 19 pages do so repeatedly.

---

If this is true... wow....

There are naked pictures of Roberts somewhere.

What made him change his mind?

Often when you argue a point you can do a 180 as you see both sides of an argument.

A supreme court justice should be both intelligent and of sound character to be able to change his or her mind after examining the facts. You'd expect the same for anyone else at the top of their profession such as a doctor, scientist or sports coach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Often when you argue a point you can do a 180 as you see both sides of an argument.

A supreme court justice should be both intelligent and of sound character to be able to change his or her mind after examining the facts. You'd expect the same for anyone else at the top of their profession such as a doctor, scientist or sports coach.

---

I'd say that, as well as admitting mistakes, is a fundamental value we should nurture in society as whole. Particularly because it's getting rarer and rarer every day.

One might think "examining the facts" is the purpose of the trial.

You make your decision, then explain why you decided so in the opinion. Beginning to write your opinion and then making your decision seems a bit backwards.