Supreme Court upholds Obamacare 5-4
Supreme Court upholds Obamacare 5-4; White House 'elated'
updated 12:29 PM EDT, Thu June 28, 2012
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- NEW: Republicans criticize the Supreme Court, call for repealing the law
- The Supreme Court finds the "individual mandate" is constitutional as a tax
- The ruling affects all Americans in areas ranging from health care to commerce
- The 2010 Affordable Care Act is the signature legislation of the Obama presidency
The narrow 5-4 ruling was
a victory for Obama but also will serve as a rallying issue for
Republicans calling for repeal of the Affordable Care Act passed by
Democrats in 2010.
An administration
official described the White House reaction as elation, while GOP
opponents criticized the high court's reasoning and promised an
immediate repeal effort. Certain Republican presidential nominee Mitt
Romney's campaign reported an immediate fund-raising spike of $300,000.
The decision impacts how Americans get medicine and health care, and also provides new court guidelines on federal power.
Romney: I'll do what justices didn't
Ruling on individual mandate explained
How will the court's ruling affect you?
CNN Explains: Health care reform
The most anticipated
Supreme Court ruling in years allows the government to continue
implementing the health care law, which doesn't take full effect until
2014. That means popular provisions that prohibit insurers from denying
coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and allow parents to keep
their children on family policies to the age of 26 will continue.
In the ruling, the high
court decided the most controversial provision -- the individual mandate
requiring people to have health insurance -- is valid as a tax, even
though it is impermissible under the Constitution's commerce clause.
"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," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority
opinion. "Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."
He later added: "The
federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health
insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a
tax on those without health insurance."
Roberts joined the high
court's liberal wing -- Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- in upholding the law. Four
conservative justices -- Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy
and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.
"To say that the
Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute
but to rewrite it," Scalia said in dissent. "Imposing a tax through
judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the
power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the
citizenry."
The polarizing law, dubbed "Obamacare" by many, is the signature legislation of Obama's time in office.
It helped spur the
creation of the conservative tea party movement and will be a
centerpiece of the presidential election campaign.
Romney called Obamacare bad policy and a bad law, adding that defeating Obama in November is the only way to get rid of it.
"What the court did not
do in its last session, I will do on the first day if elected president
of the United States, and that's to repeal Obamacare," he said Thursday
after the court's decision was announced.
Democrats, meanwhile, celebrated the policy victory.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former White House chief of staff, called it a "historic day."
"The president had the
courage to bend the needle of history and did something presidents have
tried to do for 60 years," Emanuel said of broadening health care
accessibility.
In his opinion, Roberts
appeared to note the political divisions of the health care law, writing
that "we do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies."
"That judgment is
entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," the opinion said. "We ask
only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the
challenged provisions."
The narrow focus of the
ruling on key issues such as the individual mandate -- limiting it to
taxing powers rather than general commerce -- represented the court's
effort to limit the government's authority.
"The framers created a
federal government of limited powers and assigned to this court the duty
of enforcing those limits," Roberts wrote. "The court does so today."
On the individual
mandate, the opinion said that "the Affordable Care Act's requirement
that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining
health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax."
"Because the
Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to
pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts wrote.
Republicans immediately
seized on the ruling to accuse Obama of lying to the American people
when he said during the protracted political debate on the bill in 2009
that it wasn't a tax.
In an interview with
ABC, Obama said then that the various provisions of the health care law
were intended to create an all-inclusive system, so that penalizing
people who refused to join was not a tax.
"For us to say that
you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is
absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said, noting that "right now
everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody
considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair
way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the
costs."
Republican Rep. Michele
Bachmann of Minnesota, a leading tea party voice against the health care
law, complained that the ruling "means now for the first time in the
history of the country, Congress can force Americans to purchase any
product, any service."
"This is truly a turning
point in American history. We'll never be the same way again," Bachmann
said, adding that "this is a more far-reaching decision than anyone had
expected or imagined."
Roberts, however, wrote
in the majority opinion that Congress exercised an authority it held to
assess a tax, rather than create any new taxing authority.
According to a poll
released Tuesday, 37% of Americans said they would be pleased if the
health care law were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Twenty-eight percent
said they would be pleased if the Affordable Care Act were ruled
constitutional, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey showed, compared
with 35% who said they would be disappointed if the court came back
with that outcome.
But nearly four in 10
Americans surveyed said they would have "mixed feelings" if the justices
struck down the whole law. The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted
June 20-24.
Previous surveys have indicated that some who oppose the law do so because they think it doesn't go far enough.
The Supreme Court heard
three days of politically charged hearings in March on the law formally
known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The landmark
but controversial measure was passed by congressional Democrats despite
pitched Republican opposition.
The challenge focused primarily on the law's requirement that most Americans have health insurance or pay a fine.
Supporters of the plan
argued the "individual mandate" is necessary for the system to work,
while critics argued it is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual
freedom.
Four federal appeals
courts heard challenges to parts of the law before the Supreme Court
ruling, and came up with three different results.
Courts in Cincinnati and
Washington voted to uphold the law, while the appeals court in Atlanta
struck down the individual mandate.
A fourth panel, in
Richmond, Virginia, put its decision off until penalties for failing to
have health insurance take effect in 2014.
The act passed Congress
along strictly partisan lines in March 2010, after a lengthy and heated
debate marked by intense opposition from the health insurance industry
and conservative groups.
When Obama signed the legislation later that month, he called it historic and said it marked a "new season in America."
While it was not the
comprehensive national health care system liberals initially sought,
supporters said the law would reduce health care costs, expand coverage
and protect consumers.
In place of creating a
national health system, the law bans insurance companies from denying
coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, bars insurers
from setting a dollar limit on health coverage payouts, and requires
them to cover preventative care at no additional cost to consumers.
It also requires
individuals to have health insurance, either through their employers or a
state-sponsored exchange, or face a fine beginning in 2014. There are,
however, a number of exemptions. For instance, the penalty will be
waived for people with very low incomes who are members of certain
religious groups, or who face insurance premiums that would exceed 8% of
family income even after including employer contributions and federal
subsidies.
Supporters argued the
individual mandate is critical to the success of the legislation,
because it expands the pool of people paying for insurance and ensures
that healthy people do not opt out of having insurance until they need
it.
Critics say the provision gives the government too much power over what they say should be a personal economic decision.
Twenty-six states, led
by Florida, went to court to say individuals cannot be forced to have
insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need. And they argued
that if that provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go.
The Justice Department
countered that since every American will need medical care at some point
in their lives, individuals do not "choose" whether to participate in
the health care market.
The partisan debate
around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed almost every
traditional hot-button topic: abortion and contraception funding, state
and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the
overall economy.
During arguments on
March 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the law appeared to "change the
relationship between the government and the individual in a profound
way."
Roberts argued that "all
bets are off" when it comes to federal government authority if Congress
was found to have the authority to regulate health care in the name of
commerce.
Liberal justices,
however, argued people who don't pay into the health system by
purchasing insurance make care more expensive for everyone. "It is not
your free choice" to stay out of the market for life, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg said during arguments.
"I think the justices
probably came into the argument with their minds made up. They had
hundreds of briefs and months to study them," said Thomas Goldstein,
publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a prominent Washington attorney, though
he conceded that "the oral arguments (in March) might have changed their
minds around the margin."
The legislation signed by Obama stretched to 2,700 pages, nine major sections and some 450 provisions.
The first lawsuits challenging the health care overhaul began just hours after the president signed the measure.
CNN's Rachel Streitfeld contributed to this report.
end quote from:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-ruling/index.html
It is really interesting that my article about how most constitutional lawyers on all sides believed that Obamacare would pass the Supreme Court came to be true in real life. Here is that blog article reprinted.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Most Constitutional Lawyers think Obamacare will Pass Supreme Court
So, it turns out that ALL the rhetoric about all this is political and not factual in any real way and that all legal arguments against Obamacare likely would not stand in Any Supreme court ruling as far back as the early 1800s at this point.
Days Later: after Obamacare issue was heard for three days by Supreme Court: At this point I think it will either be 5-4 for or against Obamacare because of the kinds of questions asked. But after listening carefully to President Obama carefully parse his words today (Realizing that he was the first black Head of the Harvard Law Review) which made him the most prestigious and smart pre-lawyer in the country when he was in Harvard Law School, I think if the Supreme Court goes against Obamacare that there will be a fight against the Supreme Court like FDR lead in the 1930s and won. I think if it goes 5 to 4 against Obamcare that Obama will run not only Against the Congress but also Against the Supreme Court. This might be a winning stance similar to Truman when he won against Dewey.
No comments:
Post a Comment