Affordable Care Act & Roberts

[Scuba]

From my very wise sister: I don't understand why anyone is giving Roberts any credit for a non-partisan decision -- a real stroke of Machiavellian genius. By ruling the mandate is a tax, he has rallied Tea Partiers, libertarians, Norquislings, and virtually all conservatives to oppose it no matter how much sense it makes. By ruling it's not subject to the commerce clause, he's set a precedent for ruling against government's power to regulate business.

Am I missing something here?



Does she have it right?

[jorno67]

1. I believe she does...100%

[Cary]

2. Then why didn't the other mopes go along with it too? n/t

[HopeHoops]

4. It only took one.

[Cary]

5. Perhaps but if they were conspiring, as is suggested here, then why not a unanimous decision?

I just don't buy this conspiracy theory.

[HopeHoops]

8. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Roberts was actually doing his job for once.

I read his comments in the judgment. They seem reasonable and in congruence with my understanding of the Constitution (and yes, I've read it many times). The four who ruled against it were not rational in their comments. Perhaps Roberts had a rare moment of enlightenment, but even so I wouldn't expect to see a trend here.

[Cary]

10. Clearly he was not being a rank partisan hack,

or drunk on ideology. He did claim that he wasn't an ideologue. Looking at a long line of 5 -4 radical decisions decided straight across party lines must have given him some pause.

So I agree, he probably had a rare moment of enlightenment. I don't expect a trend here either. My eggs are in the basket of President Obama being re-elected and the appointment of more young liberals.

[HopeHoops]

11. Agreed. But don't forget having a Senate that will try to block all of the appointments.

[Cary]

13. How far will the pukes go?

One of the checks and balances over the years has been the fact that when the other party takes over, whatever tactic you use can end up being used against you.

A lot of people here don't seem to understand or appreciate that fact of life and the teabaggers don't seem to care. So I wonder how far they are willing to go in terms of blowing up any chance of really governing.

[HopeHoops]

14. It's only going to get worse in Obama's second term. They'll do anything to derail his goals.

[Cary]

15. They value their politics and ideology over the welfare of our nation.

A friend of mine pulled a "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans" on me yesterday. I don't think he's a Ron Paul/Ayn Rand cultist but he sure sounded like one. I am utterly amazed, and frankly appalled, that people can't see that there is a real difference.

And the false equivalence--it's utterly appalling.

[HopeHoops]

18. To be fair, in many ways there is no difference. When it comes to caring about people...

... there is a MAJOR difference. All the Republicans care about is their corporate sponsors. Democrats (for the most part) work to better the nation and the people who live here.

[Cary]

19. If there isn't a difference then why are the Koch Brothers and other oligarchs investing so much

in Republicans?

[HopeHoops]

21. I did NOT say there wasn't a difference. I said there wasn't in some respects.

Face it, all of them are beholden to their money supplies. None of them represent us, but at least the Democrats have a sense of decency and what's good for the people of the country. That's sadly lacking in the Republican party.

[Cary]

23. I am not saying that you said there wasn't a difference

I am saying that you grossly understate that difference.

Have you ever held an elective office? I have and I was ac used of all kinds of crap that was untrue.

Come to think of it, that experience is oddly similar to some of the crap that has been tbrown at me at DU.

But I digress. I detect a certain anti-government thread running through your conclusions and I don't think that sentiment is particularly healthy. I know from my experience where I honestly put my heart and soul into it, purely as a volunteer, I was permanently put off from public service.

And that's really unfortunate. Why would anyone want to do public service when people are going to summarily dismiss them as evil and corrupt?

[HopeHoops]

24. My wife was elected to a school board - thankless job. As for anti-government...

I think the degree of corruption is directly tied to the level of the position. Local officials tend to be very dedicated to the well being of those they serve. We've got a state Senator (R) who is truly objective in her decisions. Our governor (Corbett) is an asswipe. Once you get to the US Congress level, it has become a cesspool.

[Nye Bevan]

3. He also saved Obama from what would have been the biggest setback of his Presidency.

Roberts is a very smart guy. He knew how the Court would be vilified if it overturned Obamacare. So he avoided that, he acquired a non-partisan aura, but your sister is correct that in the process he established a position on the Commerce clause that will be helpful to conservatives going forwards.

[Cary]

6. Why does he need a position?

All he really needs is 5 votes and he can do whatever he damn pleases. Who's going to stop him?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. It may be worse than that

By calling it a tax he guarantees it will be deemed unconstitutional as soon as that tax is levied. All tax bills are constitutionally required to originate in the House of Representatives. There is no doubt in anyone's mind this began in the senate. No tax can be challenged until it is levied but once it is --



It also guarantees that the GOP can repeal it by reconciliation, meaning no filibusters allowed.

It would be foolish to think that the GOP would simply accept this lying down. We wouldn't if it went against us. How many times did gay civil rights laws go against us? We never quit because we can't. You should assume the GOP won't about their core issues as well.

Unfortunately for us, they get a thousand more challenges both legislatively and judicially. We have to be lucky every time; they only have to get lucky once. Meanwhile, we're exhausting political capital defending compulsory cororate patronage while they get to frame it as a trillion dollar tax and government intrusion. You may disagree with those characterizations but that's still how they are framing the debate. And while we're defending this we aren't working for a true "health CARING" system.

We got rope-a-doped, IMHO.

[bornskeptic]

17. There are other taxes in the ACA

which are labeled as such, so if there were a problem that the bill originated in the Senate, the problem existed before Roberts' decision. There's the "Cadillac Tax" and a tax on medical equipment manufacturers, and some others.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. The bill they used had passed the House of Representatives.

They do this all the time. They vacate a passed bill and insert their own text. It's a gimmick, all right, but it's one that's time-honored.

The reconciliation thing is another story.

[ashling]

9. It depends on what she means by "precedent"

His diatribe on the commerce clause is in no way judicial precedent and cannot be used as stare decisis by any lower court.

His "reasoning" however will continue to appear in right wing briefs and arguments and may gain some weight as time goes on

[Puzzledtraveller]

12. I made a post about this, there is also one other thing.

The law can be challenged again, as it is now ruled a tax, once a person claims they are harmed by a tax they then have a legitimate complaint and can proceed with a lawsuit, as the ACA that would be challenged was altered, or adulterated by Roberts tax language. Specifically on the ground that it targets a specific group of people, those that are taxed for non action. Noone else has brough this up. Roberts scuttled the ACA, all the while protecting the courts image, to some, and avoiding the firestorm if it had been all ruled unconstitutional.

[hifiguy]

16. Roberts is the Chief Justice, and Chiefs are judged on a different scale

by history than other Justices.

Roberts, unlike Thomas, is not anything like a stupid man. He also seems to take the institutional role of the SCOTUS and its history very seriously, as a Chief Justice should. Chiefs are judged by whether they ride the crest of history's wave or, like King Canute, order the tide to stop coming in. The latter group is not treated well by history. To this day the only thing Chief Justice Roger Taney is remembered for is Dred Scott. Roberts has no desire whatsoever to be remembered as another Taney.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. I agree with some of that.

I think he was going to rule with the conservatives to strike down the entire law. He came to realize just how insane that was so he cooked up a compromise. He didn't uphold the commerce clause and instead upheld the law under the government's power to tax. Then he rewrote the medicaid expansion to again limit the federal government's power.

This does help the conservatives by limiting some of the federal government's powers. It also creates a talking point about taxes.

The traps he has laid for the (R)s are this:

1) Rmoney is screwed on calling penalties taxes. He tries to claim that he balanced the budget in MA by not raising taxes. But if penalties (and fees) are now considered taxes then he did raise taxes in MA by around half a billion dollars. This is devastating to his central message.

2) (R) Governors now need to either accept the Medicaid expansion or turn down federal money that would go to help the citizens of their state. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.