I have to admit, I and NDD had a post ready to go up in the event the court over-turned the ACA. However, that is not necessary for obvious reasons.
As an aside, I think that Roberts voted for the act, largely because he was concerned about the Supreme Court's stature in the US as a whole. Had the ACA been voted down, the court would have been seen as far more partisan -- and therefore less relevant and important. I also think he saw the political landscape as one where there was no hope for health reform should the law be voted down.
I'm very pleased by this development, happy the law was upheld, and am glad this nonsense is over.
Have a good day.
------------
NDD here -- Here's what I wrote, regardless of the actual ruling:
>>The only way to solve the problem is at the national level, which is clearly within the commerce clause.
>>If the pharmaceutical and health care insurance industries aren't "interstate commerce", I don't know what is. Medical care expenses constitute 15% of GDP, about 5% more than any other industrialized country. There are no intrastate pharmaceutical manufacturers. The field is dominated by a few very large international companies. Similarly, there are only a few, nationwide health care insurers who dominate the field. Even the hospital system is becoming more concentrated and dominated by a decreasing number of providers, who frequently have multiple locations in metropolitan areas spanning several states.
>>So the idea that health care as a whole is anything other than the largest single component of interstate commerce is laughable. That spiraling medical costs from this interstate, even international system, is anything other than a crisis that demands an federal solution is similarly laughable. If ever there was something within Congress's delegated power to regulate interstate commerce, this is it.
>>Indeed, if individual states attempted to rein in medical costs as Congress has attempted to do under the ACA, it is unclear to say the least if those statutes could withstand Constitutional challenge themselves, as unduly burdening interstate commerce (the reason that state level Usury statutes were largely gutted by the Supreme Court in 1978).
>>Further, so long as the means of implementing that regulation of interstate commerce are reasonable and do not impinge on other substantive Constitutional protections -- such as the right to privacy, which even though Justice Scalia doesn't like it, is the reason that I can't be forced to eat broccoli -- there ought to be no question that the legislation is valid.<<
With the exception of Chief Justice Roberts, the opinion broke exactly the way partisans expected it to break immediately after oral argument. There are four reactionary Justices who want to repeal the New Deal. There are four liberal justices who are in favor of maintaining the precedents from the last 75 years. I agree with Bonddad's first impression (which by the way is shared by at least one reactionary partisan) that Roberts joined the liberal Justices because of the likely devastation to the Court's reputation had the opinion been seen - accurately in my opinion - as enshrining reactionary partisan loyalty as constitutional Dogma. Keep in mind that the price for that was the 5-4 ruling that places new restrictions on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Those are my immediate impressions, subject to more patient reflection.
Capital goods orders looking better
8 minutes ago
14 comments:
woah...
welcome to the first world, everyone! Only four decades late...
Unless over turned, many of the freedoms we now enjoy will go out the window with this ruling. Look to housing, student loan debt and tuition rates, and in fact rising health care costs as the governments not so stellar record at market intervention. What's to keep government from saying everyone must now own a hybrid. Or must only consume x number of calories per day or face premium penalties. Or purchase solar panels in the name of global warming. This opens a new can of worms and is nothing more than 100% government takeover of health care. Now there is a precedent for other sectors, as well. Welcome socialism.
Not over turned, meant repealed
Despite the ranting of a chicken little anonymous commenter here; if this is socialism we're doing it wrong.
I worked on Capitol Hill and the Clinton Healthcare Reform effort in 1993-94 so I couldn't be happier.
I think it is interesting the SC used the tax provisions to uphold the law. I had often wondered why the Obama Admin had not made that argument since the "fine" was enforced through the tax code as opposed to civil remedies.
As they say if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck and the Court correctly saw the fine was indeed a tax.
To say that Kennedy is a reactionary justice that wants to repeal the New Deal is absurd.
Scalia? Absolutely. Once the most thoughtful and arguably sound legal mind on the Court, he is now a blind, possibly senile, conservative partisan.
Alito's not worth his weight in sand. Thomas is a legitimate reactionary who would like to reset the federal government to its size and reach circa 1800. All three of them are becoming more and more libertarian, as that is the happening ideology in conservative legal circles these days, which does pose a threat to our New Deal way of doing business.
But Roberts is a big government conservative, very similar in ideology to the president who appointed him. He has an expansive view of Constitutional protections (most notably, free speech under the First Amendment), but absent the existence of a clearly infringed right, adheres to the principle of judicial restraint and clearly holds a broad view of federal power. (See, e.g., Arizona v. United States for another recent example.) Spending most of your life working in and for the federal government and then serving on the DC Circuit will do that to you.
With this decision, Roberts is writing his legacy as potentially one of the most consistent justices in the history of the Court. The only area where he seriously puzzles me is his Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but the landscape there is very heavily trafficked and has become a bit different from most other constitutional questions.
Kennedy is just power hungry, though today Roberts outflanked him as the key, swing voter. I'm honestly not sure why he didn't join the majority after Roberts decided to uphold, other than to create the appearance of a "close call" by keeping one swing voter in each camp.
A year ago I predicted 6-3 with Roberts in the majority. But for Kennedy's strange dalliance into Scalinsanity, I had it exactly right.
The Court has moved to the right since Bush's appointments, despite Obama's efforts to reverse them, but the right is such an inconsistent place with cross-cutting goals that there remains plenty of room for an expansion (or at least affirmation) of federal power like we saw today.
@John M - the tax argument was in the government's brief; it was their back up argument. It's really the only reason why this decision was able to happen that way, if they hadn't argued it the SC wouldn't have been able to rule on the tax issue.
It's about time. We won't be fully first world until we fix our voting process, but this is a giant step in the right direction.
Interesting salon.com piece here http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote/ speculating that Roberts changed his vote at the last minute.
It is beyond naive to bestow trust on a handful of democrats spending their political capital on a last second crafting of health care's saving grace. Do you really think they have the collective citizenry's best interest in mind? Do you really think they have all bases covered in the way of mitigating unintended consequences? Time will tell, but there are so many mechanisms for surging prices of both premiums and medical care cost that it is disturbing.
The right-wingers on the SC know that if... when... President Obama is re-elected, their time to realign the future of the court is over.
They're getting in their last digs just as furiously as they can.
I'll bet Scalia and Thomas were apoplectic in chambers over Roberts' decision to abandon them, as it appears he did from the miswritten details in their dissent.
Grrr... I hate it when I forget to ask for follow-up comments to be emailed to me.
Bonddad or NDd, can you set up your blog defaults to do that automatically, with opting-out being the choice the commenter has to make?
To Jimdotz: As I understand it, Justice Kennedy pressured Roberts the most trying to get him to change his vote.
It would be interesting news about Justice Kennedy, if that's true, Anonymous. I remember hearing when President Obama nominated Justices Sotomayor and Kagan that one important characteristic he was looking for was their ability to argue toe-to-toe with Justice Scalia.
It is possible that the President's efforts just bore some major fruit on the SB1070 and the ACA decisions? Could it be that Scalia lost his marbles on the SB1070 decision (getting extremely political, I mean) because the liberal ladies made him just plain nuts?
The most interesting and least talked about issue with ObamaCare is how the economy will fare after millions of Americans are suddenly forced to spend a nice chunk of their monthly paychecks on health insurance. These folks will then have to pay for their health insurance rather than other things they had been used to like eating out, food for home, clothes and shoes, cell phone, jewelry, toys, car insurance, internet, etc. I think there are big problems ahead because of this, as most these folks can scarcely afford this new relatively large expensive.
Post a Comment