Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
I haven't read the opinion yet, but summary from SCOTUSBlog is that the mandate has been upheld under Congress's power to impose taxes for the "general welfare." Chief Justice Roberts joins the majority opinion. The entire statute, therefore, is upheld.
I'll have much more to say about this shortly, but assuming the initial summary is correct, this is a travesty. The "general welfare" clause adds no additional powers to the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8. It is only since the New Deal case of Helvering, 150 years after the ratification of the Constitution, that the Court suddenly "discovered" an omnibus "general welfare" power. This decision destroys any remaining limits on that power.
SCOTUSBlog says that Roberts' vote "saved the ACA." If that's true, it's a major indictment of Roberts' jurisprudence.
The only non-travesty aspect, so far, is that the decision apparently limits the federal government's ability to coerce the states via Medicaid funding. That would be the first time SCOTUS ever actually limited a conditional grant program. But small consolation there.
- Comment (133)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
From Orin Kerr on The Volokh Conspiracy:
"Based on the thread at SCOTUSblog, it sounds like everybody gets something from the Health Care Cases. Liberals get the law being upheld 5-4 under the taxing power; conservatives get the mandate being held beyond the Commerce Clause power."
May '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Severely Ltd.: From Orin Kerr on The Volokh Conspiracy:
"Based on the thread at SCOTUSblog, it sounds like everybody gets something from the Health Care Cases. Liberals get the law being upheld 5-4 under the taxing power; conservatives get the mandate being held beyond the Commerce Clause power." · 0 minutes ago
The biggest problem there is that the nuance of that will be lost in the politics of it. What's more there is a concurrence of four judges which say that the commerce power does cover the mandate. I don't know if the language of a concurrence holds any sway as a matter of precedent, but if it does, this isn't necessarily a victory for those who want the commerce clause limited.
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Cylon
Roberts accepted the broccoli argument and stated that congress didn't have power under the commerce clause to require the purchase of insurance. What he ruled, and I think is technically correct about, is that it is constitutional to levy a healthcare tax which one can be exempted from if one already is paying for insurance. · 8 minutes ago
Thanks for the explanation, this is why Ricochet is great. Next question: That being the logic, isn't it twisted reasoning on the court's part since, as has been pointed out, the administration argued this wasn't a tax?
My understanding of the details is limited so I don't want to go too far, I'm just having a hard time seeing a linear progression of logic in how the majority opinion is constructed based on the arguments as presented (or as I understand they were presented)
Mar '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
1. Scanning the opinions, Roberts is revealed as the A law student he no doubt was, cleverly weaving an argument to uphold: the mandate penalty is not a tax for some Anti-Injunction Act purposes, is a tax for powers purposes, but is not a "capitation or Direct tax" for purposes of that clause. Roberts' opinion is the very definition of "too clever by half," the opposite of the kind of clear, principled opinion that makes SCOTUS authoritative in a democracy. To put it bluntly, he is Obama's [expletive]. In both this and the Arizona case, he has caved in the face of Obama's threat to his institution.
2. Politically, this puts the onus on the American electorate; if they dislike the crony capitalism at the heart of Obamacare and its individual mandate, it's up to them to give the Republicans the power to dismantle it. And it's up to Republicans to make this election about that (explaining as well why the private sector economy is being damaged by it). The SCOTUS is not some deus ex machina able to save the American people from their own error in empowering Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 6:14pmAug '11
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Kinda hard to prove such a statement, PP.
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
das_motorhead
Valin
das_motorhead
If it is not the job of The Court to stop the other two branches from doing stupid things like this...what is there job? · 1 minute ago
Exactly. It's not like we're asking Roberts to have the expertise to debate the relative merits of, say, MRI vs CT scans, and how the pricing mechanisms hospitals use affect patient outcomes (sorry, not a great example). And of course it's not his job to babysit us and protect us from bad decisions, but that wasn't the issue at hand. Some of us actually thought there was a constitutional problem with ACA that went way beyond the political decisions. · 2 minutes ago
You gotta actually read the opinion to see what Roberts did. The logical absurdities of our system are on full display. He's telling us that the foundation has cracks so the edifice built on it will suffer. I've argued some for that understanding as well. Perhaps it's time for a more fundamental change.
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Can I do both? I promise not to throw any bricks, just yell (in a CoC compliant manner) a little bit here on the site.
Aug '11
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Robert Mitchell:
2. Politically, this puts the onus on the American electorate; if they dislike the crony capitalism at the heart of Obamacare and its individual mandate, it's up to them to give the Republicans the power to dismantle it. And it's up to Republicans to make this election about that (explaining as well why the private sector economy is being damaged by it). The SCOTUS is not some deus ex machina able to save the American people from their own error in empowering Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
That's the best spin on it.
A friend of mine just posted to Facebook: "'Congress the authority to do this, but you have to do it honestly -- you have to sell the American people on this as the largest tax increase in history. You don't have the right to compel people to buy insurance under the Commerce Clause, and you can't bully the states into following through by threatening to yank their Medicaid funding. You have convince the public it's the right thing to do and get them to vote for congressional candidates who support it.' They gave the authority on this to the American voters.
Aug '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Adam Freedman
Midge: true, the ex post facto provision applies only to criminal laws, not civil laws like taxes. Certain taxes could be unconstitutional if they violate the requirement of apportionment, but Roberts says that apportionment doesn't apply in this case (not sure I agree). A tax could also be unconstitutional if it did not originate in the House (vs. the Senate).
Thanks for the answer, Adam (even to a question I had accidentally edited into being even more unintelligible than it was the first time).
Do you ever worry that the Constitutional limits on taxation are too few?
May '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
das_motorhead:
isn't it twisted reasoning on the court's part since, as has been pointed out, the administration argued this wasn't a tax?
My understanding of the details is limited so I don't want to go too far, I'm just having a hard time seeing a linear progression of logic in how the majority opinion is constructed based on the arguments as presented (or as I understand they were presented)
Well, that's my issue, too. See here.
But, to be fair, in it's legal arguments before the courts the government did claim that the mandate penalty was a tax, hich was a total 180 from what they said when they were trying to pass the bill. In listening to the governments arguments that the mandate was a tax it always sounded unconvincing to me, and what's more, their main argument as I followed it (which could be poor observation on my part) was that they were doing this by the authority of the commerce clause.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 5:59pmMay '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
double post
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 5:57pmMay '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
.
Jul '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
EJHill
. · 1 minute ago
Bravo, sir!
Apr '11
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
We have been moving in this direction for decades but this decision is the first concrete step to turn freeborn American citizens into subjects ruled by the state.
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
The King Prawn
You gotta actually read the opinion to see what Roberts did. The logical absurdities of our system are on full display. He's telling us that the foundation has cracks so the edifice built on it will suffer. I've argued some for that understanding as well. Perhaps it's time for a more fundamental change. · 9 minutes ago
Maybe I'm hoping for too much. I can see the value in pointing out the massive flaws in our system that you discussed in the Henry post (and thanks for bringing it up again, it really is magnificent), but I would rather see them go uber-originalist and knock the whole thing down based on that and not go with "you made your bed...". I know it's not that easy, and they're better minds than I.
Time for the valium.
May '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Adam Freedman:
The only non-travesty aspect, so far, is that the decision apparently limits the federal government's ability to coerce the states via Medicaid funding. That would be the first time SCOTUS ever actually limited a conditional grant program. But small consolation there.
Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but that limit seems utterly devoid of significance. Federal politicians will simply withhold other funds, like highway repair funds, as they have in the past to get their way in the states.
The next few years will be awfully interesting.
Apr '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Well I was planning on giving the Romney a large check in a couple of months...that timetable has now changed.
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Severely Ltd.: From Orin Kerr on The Volokh Conspiracy:
"Based on the thread at SCOTUSblog, it sounds like everybody gets something from the Health Care Cases. Liberals get the law being upheld 5-4 under the taxing power; conservatives get the mandate being held beyond the Commerce Clause power." · 25 minutes ago
Golly gee, Severely! You're right! It's just like Christmas!
<grrrr>
Sorry. Civilization just ended. I'm getting in touch with my inner barbarian.
Sep '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
What am I missing. Please remember that day one of oral arguments dealt with whether ObamaCare was a tax or penalty. At issue was the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 which prohibits people from suing the government for a tax that hasn’t yet gone into effect. If that's the case, why wasn't the entire case thrown out and no judgement rendered on any part of the case until 2014???
A reminder of the mental and linguistic gymnastics as to whether the act is a tax or mandate can be read here.
This is judicial Animal Farm.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 6:12pmMay '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Who's up for another "Taxed Enough Already" rally on the National Mall? Say, September or October sometime? Carville said the TEA Party was dead. This might wake it up.