ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[nageov3t]

They ruled (on page 44 of their decision) that the commerce clause and the "whatever other" clause they wanted to use do not apply, but that the tax clause does.

This is both good and bad. Bad in that it means this horrific law stays around. Good in that now Congress can pass a law removing the tax from this law.

unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), we have a precedent set of the President deciding he can ignore laws, so there's not much to stop the next conservative POTUS (whoever that may be) to simply decide not to tax or go after anyone who chooses not to follow the law.

look forward to Obamacare waivers issued for all 50 states next time there's a Republican in the White House.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

One good thing is that the SCOTUS finally has limited the commerce clause.

I have no faith that they have. The next time it is needed, they'll use it, trust me.

 

[dank69]

New info:

The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.

Edit: Followed by

Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax

 

[The-Noid]

Kind of interesting. There is no political accountability in this as we heard for months "this is not a tax," however I am glad to see SCOTUS took it that way rather than giving congress even more power/precident under the commerce clause...

 

[DrewSG3]

It was 6-3

 

[Phokus]

All of the news sites were reporting that the individual mandate was struck down for a while there. Weird.

Yeah my co-worker was remarking how CNN reported that, but Yahoo News said it was upheld at the same time.

 

[Genx87]

All of the news sites were reporting that the individual mandate was struck down for a while there. Weird.

Yup he he. CNN had it up for a few minutes as well.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

"Ugh, why can't poor people just die already" - Conservatives

 

[Farang]

It was 6-3

5-4.. there is conflicting info but this is from scotusblog

 

[QuantumPion]

Well at least Obama has set a new executive power precedent so when Romney gets in office he can just say the law will not be enforced and the tax will not be collected.

 

[michal1980]

what a load of crap.

What else can goverment force us to buy next?

 

[dank69]

It was 6-3

Again, everything I'm reading says 5-4

 

[HydroSqueegee]

so what does this mean for the non polotically inclined Joe Average?

 

[glenn1]

Time for Republicans to begin using the mandate power once they're back in office. Use this as a club to basically outlaw abortions with mandatory pre-procedure services (or maybe a surety bond), mandatory ID (without which voting is prohibited), mandatory retirement and healthcare savings accounts, mandatory firearm purchases, etc. Bleed the Democratic constituency dry with all the mandates.

 

[Genx87]

I believe Kennedy actually sided against it to make it 5-4.

 

[Jaskalas]

Secession.

You don't want to be dictated to, band together with fellow conservatives and leave the Union to its own tyranny.

 

[DrewSG3]

Again, everything I'm reading says 5-4

i think you're right.. Yahoo has 6-3 on the front page, Scotusblog says 5-4

 

[dank69]

More info:

Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.

 

[Farang]

Kennedy reading dissent, wanted to invalidate entire law. So Roberts did save the ACA

 

[Phokus]

1. Conservatives don't have an alternative healthcare plan that would actually work in reality.

2. If everyone isn't on a health insurance plan (either through a mandate or through something like an expansion of medicare, neither of which conservatives want), then universal healthcare won't work. You don't want people waiting until they're sick to be on something.

 

[Mxylplyx]

so what does this mean for the non polotically inclined Joe Average?

It means that Joe Average might actually have to learn what the law actually is instead of relying on a bunch of rhetoric, and then might come to appreciate it in a few years if he loses his job and finds that he miraculously still has access to healthcare.

 

[dank69]

Kennedy reading dissent, wanted to invalidate entire law. So Roberts did save the ACA

quote:

In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

 

[The-Noid]

More info:

Great supreme court got everything it wanted on this one...

If this would have been played as a tax from the start, we wouldn't even be where we are now.

 

[lopri]

unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), we have a precedent set of the President deciding he can ignore laws, so there's not much to stop the next conservative POTUS (whoever that may be) to simply decide not to tax or go after anyone who chooses not to follow the law.

look forward to Obamacare waivers issued for all 50 states next time there's a Republican in the White House.

I understand you did not like the law, but don't you think your prediction is a bit hyperbole?

 

[Phokus]

Secession.

You don't want to be dictated to, band together with fellow conservatives and leave the Union to its own tyranny.

Fuck i'm all for this, it'll be funny watching red states unable to leech off blue states and turning your new formed country into some sort of 3rd world vacation destination.