- Jul 27, 2002
- 13,310
- 687
- 126
The mandate survives as a tax. Will update the thread as the details come in.
Update 1 (10:12 AM): As expected, Roberts joined the liberals.
Update 2 (10:14 AM): The medicaid provision survived as well but limited.
Update 3 (10:23 AM): THE VERDICT
Update 4 (10:25 AM): On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.
Update 5 (10:32 AM): Kennedy wrote the principal dissent. It's a surprise to me and probably to some others.
Update 6 (10:35 AM): Here is the summary of the day (so far) I shamlessly stole from SCOTUSBlog.
Update 7 (10:50 AM): The opinion is here (193 pages!) -> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf (PDF)
Update 8 (10:54 AM): The dissent wasn't authored by Kennedy alone as posted in Update #5, but the four justices co-authored it which is an unusual thing. I suppose none wanted to be singled out in the history. (As they did in Bush v. Gore with an unsigned opinion)
Further updates are no longer chronological.
- There are 3 opinions. One by the chief justice Roberts, one by justice Ginsberg writing for the courts liberal block, and one by the conservative block writing jointly. The votes are 4-1-4 with Roberts in the middle, thus his opinion being controlling.
- Obama's response -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zU1y_0Geo&feature=player_embedded (Transcript)
- According to various news reports, justice Kennedy looked angry while reading the dissent on the bench. I am totally sympathetic with him! When was the last time he was in the losing side in a 5-4 case?
Below is my personal summary on the decisions:
As a legal matter, the decision came out as following:
- "Individual Mandate" is not a constitutionally acceptable exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause. The vote here is 5-4 along the ideological line, with the liberals protesting viscerally. The conservatives endorse "action/inaction" distinction, and this new Commerce Clause theory can potentially curtail the power of federal government dramatically in the future, setting a new standard of review. However, it is unclear how much it will weigh in future cases because Roberts' solo opinion seems to treat it like a dictum, rather than a holding. Libertarian scholars self-congratulate on this line.
- Roberts accepted the government's alternative rationale of federal taxing power. Whether a law calls itself a tax or acts like a tax is a different matter, and the federal government has exercised taxing power (tax.. to pay debts.. and welfare of the United States..) on various legislations. Obamacare can be sustained/understood as a valid exercise of the taxing power granted by the Consitution. (Here, the holding is 5-4 with Roberts joining the liberals)
- Liberals would rather uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, but they have no problem with upholding it under taxing power since it is an easier-to-meet burden. Again, Ginsberg's opinion reads almost like a complete dissent against Roberts' opinion, largely ignoring the joint dissenters.
- The other conservative justices would have invalidated the entire statutes. They endorse the "action/inaction" theory and dispute the taxing power rationale since the law clearly states "mandate" and "penalty," despite involvement of the IRS. What's interesting here is that they probe into legislative history in order to support their position that the law wasn't designed as a tax. (Justice Scalia, being a "textualist," usually despises searching of legislative backgrounds)
- The principal dissent (co-written by the conservatives) is pretty weak. This is my personal opinion but it is objective to an extent. (give it a try!) The opinion is somewhat tedious and very short on citations. That is understandable to a degree knowing that they are advancing a brand-new constitutional theory.
- At the end of the day, there is no controlling/lasting legal precedent except the "action/inaction" distinction that 5 justices seem to endorse. The decision does, however, uphold the Obamacare which looks to have been the bottom line of Roberts. Whether the action/inaction theory will last remains to be seen (Scalia himself disputed it as a meaningless distinction in the past), but as long as this decision has a value of stare decisis there will not be "Broccoli Horribles" in the future.
- We now have some behind-the-scene story leaked by unidentified sources. Jan Crawford writes for CBS. (Jan Crawford is a reliable SCOTUS reporter who wrote a book about it once. (Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Very interesting and a must-read if you like dramas behind the curtain.
- Yet another rumor: Roberts wrote both Obamacare opinions.
If this is true, it explains why the joint dissent becomes batshit crazy as they discuss severability and medicaid expansion in the later part of their opinion.
- More from Jan Crawford
Discord at Supreme Court is deep, and personal
Update 1 (10:12 AM): As expected, Roberts joined the liberals.
Update 2 (10:14 AM): The medicaid provision survived as well but limited.
Update 3 (10:23 AM): THE VERDICT
Update 4 (10:25 AM): On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.
Update 5 (10:32 AM): Kennedy wrote the principal dissent. It's a surprise to me and probably to some others.
Update 6 (10:35 AM): Here is the summary of the day (so far) I shamlessly stole from SCOTUSBlog.
Update 7 (10:50 AM): The opinion is here (193 pages!) -> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf (PDF)
Update 8 (10:54 AM): The dissent wasn't authored by Kennedy alone as posted in Update #5, but the four justices co-authored it which is an unusual thing. I suppose none wanted to be singled out in the history. (As they did in Bush v. Gore with an unsigned opinion)
Further updates are no longer chronological.
- There are 3 opinions. One by the chief justice Roberts, one by justice Ginsberg writing for the courts liberal block, and one by the conservative block writing jointly. The votes are 4-1-4 with Roberts in the middle, thus his opinion being controlling.
- Obama's response -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zU1y_0Geo&feature=player_embedded (Transcript)
- According to various news reports, justice Kennedy looked angry while reading the dissent on the bench. I am totally sympathetic with him! When was the last time he was in the losing side in a 5-4 case?
Below is my personal summary on the decisions:
As a legal matter, the decision came out as following:
- "Individual Mandate" is not a constitutionally acceptable exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause. The vote here is 5-4 along the ideological line, with the liberals protesting viscerally. The conservatives endorse "action/inaction" distinction, and this new Commerce Clause theory can potentially curtail the power of federal government dramatically in the future, setting a new standard of review. However, it is unclear how much it will weigh in future cases because Roberts' solo opinion seems to treat it like a dictum, rather than a holding. Libertarian scholars self-congratulate on this line.
- Roberts accepted the government's alternative rationale of federal taxing power. Whether a law calls itself a tax or acts like a tax is a different matter, and the federal government has exercised taxing power (tax.. to pay debts.. and welfare of the United States..) on various legislations. Obamacare can be sustained/understood as a valid exercise of the taxing power granted by the Consitution. (Here, the holding is 5-4 with Roberts joining the liberals)
- Liberals would rather uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, but they have no problem with upholding it under taxing power since it is an easier-to-meet burden. Again, Ginsberg's opinion reads almost like a complete dissent against Roberts' opinion, largely ignoring the joint dissenters.
- The other conservative justices would have invalidated the entire statutes. They endorse the "action/inaction" theory and dispute the taxing power rationale since the law clearly states "mandate" and "penalty," despite involvement of the IRS. What's interesting here is that they probe into legislative history in order to support their position that the law wasn't designed as a tax. (Justice Scalia, being a "textualist," usually despises searching of legislative backgrounds)
- The principal dissent (co-written by the conservatives) is pretty weak. This is my personal opinion but it is objective to an extent. (give it a try!) The opinion is somewhat tedious and very short on citations. That is understandable to a degree knowing that they are advancing a brand-new constitutional theory.
- At the end of the day, there is no controlling/lasting legal precedent except the "action/inaction" distinction that 5 justices seem to endorse. The decision does, however, uphold the Obamacare which looks to have been the bottom line of Roberts. Whether the action/inaction theory will last remains to be seen (Scalia himself disputed it as a meaningless distinction in the past), but as long as this decision has a value of stare decisis there will not be "Broccoli Horribles" in the future.
- We now have some behind-the-scene story leaked by unidentified sources. Jan Crawford writes for CBS. (Jan Crawford is a reliable SCOTUS reporter who wrote a book about it once. (Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Very interesting and a must-read if you like dramas behind the curtain.
- Yet another rumor: Roberts wrote both Obamacare opinions.
If this is true, it explains why the joint dissent becomes batshit crazy as they discuss severability and medicaid expansion in the later part of their opinion.
- More from Jan Crawford
Discord at Supreme Court is deep, and personal
Last edited:
+1
Facebook
Twitter