The Historic Health Care Reform Rulings...kudos SC!

by Maria S Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:20 am

Yes, Yes!

I am thrilled beyond words:)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Amazing..I was prepared like many who wanted change- for the worst.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1

by Maria S Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:44 am

A big thank you to Chief. Justice John Roberts- he is my new Hero!

God bless him:)

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 am

i have to read the decision in detail, but what happened to the commerce clause argument? roberts's opinion was based on this being a tax (thus skirting the commerce clause completely). this gives romney a great line -- a president who vowed never to raise taxes on the middle class and the poor has just introduced a brand new tax.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:03 am

ENTIRE Affordable Care Act

S T A N D S.

Wowwwwwwwwww.......

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:05 am

there are two kinds of republicans -- the slack jawed (low IQ as saamiyar likes to call them), limbaughites and palinites (L&Ps) and the other kind, the ruling class, the ones who keep the L&Ps well fed with red meat political rhetoric and religion giving them what they want socially, so that they can do as they like fiscally. i think the latter realize that this is not a bad thing to keep overall spending on healthcare down, and is in fact in line with their political philosophy of not asking society as a whole to pick up the costs for the irresponsibility and misplaced priorities of a few. roberts clearly belongs to this latter class.

by Maria S Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:08 am

I am not a legal expert..and am sure there will be a lot of details-nuances which have to looked into. Looks like Justice Roberts wanted to uphold the law..but found a way to please the conservatives- with the commerce clause (in an interesting and creative way!)

But..it could have been lot worse..he could have totally ruled against it!

In the end..against all odds, most bets..the "individual mandate" was upheld- the core was upheld *(as per my understanding)..now the States will have to come up with ways (like opting out of Medicaid expansion)..

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:09 am

listening to onpoint. ashbrook and his guests are getting into all the nuances.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:16 am

Awesome news! CNN had the headline "Mandate Struck Down" when I left home, but NPR gave me different news altogether on the radio.

Chief Justice Roberts deserves praise for finding common ground with the liberals on the bench.

Congrats Obama, congrats America.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:17 am

Maria S wrote:I am thrilled beyond words:)

I was doing high-fives while driving on the freeway when I heard the news on Morning Edition. I think there was some celebratory honking on the freeway this morning.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:21 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:but what happened to the commerce clause argument?

I am not surprised Roberts didn't buy the Commerce Clause argument. I might have hoped that Kennedy would buy that argument, but he didn't.

Politically this is going to be quite contentious, with the whole tax thing being used against Obama. But as Maria says, this is much better than the alternative of striking the mandate down altogether.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:24 am

Maria S wrote:
In the end..against all odds, most bets..the "individual mandate" was upheld- the core was upheld *(as per my understanding)..now the States will have to come up with ways (like opting out of Medicaid expansion)..

As a legal, political, educational, healthcare, spiritual, military, transportation, energy, IT, etc....(I like to be humble) expert I can clearly say that:

Most states cannot afford to act on their own by opting out. The bad economy is a blessing in disguise.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:27 am

obama's argument during the debates should be -- "governor romney, this is OUR victory; in fact i just took your idea and made it available to all americans. embrace it, don't shy away from it."

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:27 am

I've no idea what the issues were but all these references to Morning Edition and On Point are making me nostalgic. So let me join in with my two bits: Congrats John Roberts! Congrats Obama! Congrats Sania! Congrats Sachin!

by indophile Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:30 am

panini press wrote:
Maria S wrote:I am thrilled beyond words:)
I was doing high-fives while driving on the freeway when I heard the news on Morning Edition. I think there was some celebratory honking on the freeway this morning.

CNN did a "Dewey Won." Very Happy

by Maria S Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:31 am

Carvaka,

One of those historic moments..when we remember where we were, when we heard the news!

We gathered in the lobby..a large group of people waiting for the rulings..the TV had CNN on..my heart sank as I heard the breaking news..how wrong could they be! Came back to my office..and looked at Huffington Post..by this time..there were loud cheers..others were getting the *CORRECT news on their smart phones..and went back to the lobby..by this time CNN was also making the corrections- they need a big spanking:)

I am happy..so many health care activists/patient rights advocates..people who have worked over the years for this..

*I was hoping I would see you here today! Glad you are here:)

by doofus_maximus Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:40 am

by doofus_maximus Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:42 am

by doofus_maximus Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:44 am

few days ago there was post about CNN being bipartisan or not. It should be changed to Is CNN being a run by Idiots or not?

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:46 am

i've given up watching regular TV news. the only serious TV i watch is jon stewart.

by truthbetold Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:33 pm

Justice roberts declared that health care act cannot stand on commerce clause. Cnn jumped the gun and announced law was struck down. Later in his judgement he explained that he found the law to be constitutional as congress can impose taxes. He surprised everyone including cnn. He did raise this question during oral arguments but most people including me did not expect him to uphold the health care act.

Roberts earned great respect from american people. Obama got a terrific victory by not losing the case.

I have to admit my mistake in reading roberts and supreme court.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:47 pm

who said the following?

“It is not our job,” he said, “to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:06 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html

good opinion piece in the post.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:38 am

if roberts voted to counter a political negative opinion about his court, won't that amount to politicking and not ruling the case on the basis of its own merit.

If even the supreme court makes decisions to create suitable impression, image, and public perception rather than intellectual honesty and the true merit and arguments behind the case, then it means honesty is dead at every level.

by Kris Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:25 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:if roberts voted to counter a political negative opinion about his court, won't that amount to politicking and not ruling the case on the basis of its own merit.

If even the supreme court makes decisions to create suitable impression, image, and public perception rather than intellectual honesty and the true merit and arguments behind the case, then it means honesty is dead at every level.

>>>Yes on both counts. The 'congressional power to tax' does sound like a position that was backed into, but narrow as it is, it works constitutionally. There is always the possibility that was genuinely his prime concern. In his opinion, he does say that the SC's role is not to weigh in on the wisdom of the powers given to congress by the constitution.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:14 am

Kris wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:if roberts voted to counter a political negative opinion about his court, won't that amount to politicking and not ruling the case on the basis of its own merit.

If even the supreme court makes decisions to create suitable impression, image, and public perception rather than intellectual honesty and the true merit and arguments behind the case, then it means honesty is dead at every level.

>>>Yes on both counts. The 'congressional power to tax' does sound like a position that was backed into, but narrow as it is, it works constitutionally. There is always the possibility that was genuinely his prime concern. In his opinion, he does say that the SC's role is not to weigh in on the wisdom of the powers given to congress by the constitution.

anything the court does is viewed through political filters. so roberts probably threw that consideration out the window since that was a public perception battle that he was never going to win no matter what. he has basically told the american people that it's up to them to decide whether they want this law or not. his job was to simply judge its constitutionality.

by Maria S Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:22 am

*Sure..they have to be viewed through political filters..but, for some of us..the "psychological" prisms/filters are useful to analyze human behavior, especially when someone breaks from their mould and does something dramatic-totally unexpected.

And in that regard..Judge. Roberts is quite fascinating- and so is the relationship between him and Pres. Obama..have been learning a lot about Judge Roberts- his life since yesterday..*the only memorable image before all this-was him being over confident, cocky and messing up the lines of the Presidential oath on that momentous occasion..like he really did not care much for him..(thought may be it was because..Sen. Obama voted against him..during his confirmation hearings)..and had to do a "do-over"..

*Did not know that both Justice. Roberts and Pres. Obama..were the students of the same man- Constitutional law Prof.Lawrence Tribe at Harvard..how cool is that for any Prof/Educator Very Happy

- two of his students are CJ of the SC and the President of USA!

*Did not know Justice. Roberts..has a history of idiopathic seizures. had them a few times in his teen years..as well as after he became CJ. As anyone with seizures, or has a loved one with Epilepsy knows..it has to enormously alter one's ways of thinking about illnesses- how helpless one can feel/relate to it..besides the illness itself- how difficult it can be when one has a "prexisting condition"..and denied Health Insurance..the perils of having no money/ability to get medications etc. *Mr. David Axelrod (Pres. Obama's senior adviser) has a child with Epilepsy..and he is a Patient Advocate- and he openly speaks about this all the time.

Obviously, I don't know if this contributed to Roberts perceptions/views about the state of Health Care in the US in some very small way. He may be as conservative as he can be, and still join with fellow conservative ideolog Justices..but, when it comes to Health..it is so personal on a human level- personal experiences shape us..would not be surprised...when he was doing some thinking/soul seaching..he did think about his own experiences.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:32 am

Maria wrote:Obviously, I don't know if this contributed to Roberts perceptions/views about the state of Health Care in the US in some very small way.

please don't trouble yourself to tell us what you don't know.

by Maria S Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:46 am

Oh..it's no trouble..when I don't know for sure..it is.."I don't know "..

But, you.. Greatest of all Mind readers on line..your wisdom, brilliance.. not to mention compassion..the way you are always "so sure"..when you say something!

Not everyone can be as good as you or CNN these days!

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:07 am

Maria S wrote:Oh..it's no trouble..when I don't know for sure..it is.."I don't know "..

But, you.. Greatest of all Mind readers on line..your wisdom, brilliance.. not to mention compassion..the way you are always "so sure"..when you say something!

Not everyone can be as good as you or CNN these days!

you said, "obviously, i don't know if..." is there any special reason to say something that, according to you, is obvious?

by Guest Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:17 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:you said, "obviously, i don't know if..." is there any special reason to say something that, according to you, is obvious?

yes there is. psst, come closer...gobi-aloo. ja? (yaar)

by Kris Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:37 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have to read the decision in detail, but what happened to the commerce clause argument? roberts's opinion was based on this being a tax (thus skirting the commerce clause completely). this gives romney a great line -- a president who vowed never to raise taxes on the middle class and the poor has just introduced a brand new tax.

>>>> Obama's original contention was this was not a tax, but ironically this is the grounds on which he won this. Romney is opposing Obama and yet, this was his plan originally. I thought Scalia, for all his broccoli reductio ad absurdums, would have had a position closer to Roberts' considering he is a constitutionalist (at least this was my impression anyway). Ironies galore, but the more I think about it, Roberts' position is valid in limiting the SC's role just to the validity of the law.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:47 am

Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have to read the decision in detail, but what happened to the commerce clause argument? roberts's opinion was based on this being a tax (thus skirting the commerce clause completely). this gives romney a great line -- a president who vowed never to raise taxes on the middle class and the poor has just introduced a brand new tax.

>>>> Obama's original contention was this was not a tax, but ironically this is the grounds on which he won this. Romney is opposing Obama and yet, this was his plan originally. I thought Scalia, for all his broccoli reductio ad absurdums, would have had a position closer to Roberts' considering he is a constitutionalist (at least this was my impression anyway). Ironies galore, but the more I think about it, Roberts' position is valid in limiting the SC's role just to the validity of the law.

did you read a few articles i posted about scalia in another thread? all indications is that he has become senile in his dotage. i used to admire him for his intellect despite the fact that his worldview was diametrically opposite mine on most issues. now i and others of my political hue have no reason to respect him despite our differences with him. simply put he is no longer fit to serve.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:51 am

Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have to read the decision in detail, but what happened to the commerce clause argument? roberts's opinion was based on this being a tax (thus skirting the commerce clause completely). this gives romney a great line -- a president who vowed never to raise taxes on the middle class and the poor has just introduced a brand new tax.

>>>> Obama's original contention was this was not a tax, but ironically this is the grounds on which he won this. Romney is opposing Obama and yet, this was his plan originally. I thought Scalia, for all his broccoli reductio ad absurdums, would have had a position closer to Roberts' considering he is a constitutionalist (at least this was my impression anyway). Ironies galore, but the more I think about it, Roberts' position is valid in limiting the SC's role just to the validity of the law.

Anything that goes out of your pocket as decided by others without any direct use for you is a TAX. They use different names for it: Health insurance, life insurance, etc.. all are taxes in a way.

- A Simpletonian view

by Idéfix Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:19 am

Kris wrote:>>>Yes on both counts. The 'congressional power to tax' does sound like a position that was backed into, but narrow as it is, it works constitutionally. There is always the possibility that was genuinely his prime concern. In his opinion, he does say that the SC's role is not to weigh in on the wisdom of the powers given to congress by the constitution.

There are conspiracy theories galore on the right and the left about Roberts's decision, but this is exactly what it comes down to. Nobody other than him will ever know his motives for this ruling, but what matters to the rest of us is that he ruled quite narrowly on the constitutionality of the law, and that's actually in keeping with his conservative philosophy. One of the favorite gripes of conservatives regarding the courts is about activist judges running rough-shod over the legislative will of the people. Roberts is the only conservative on the bench who stayed away from doing just that in this case.

by Kris Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:25 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have to read the decision in detail, but what happened to the commerce clause argument? roberts's opinion was based on this being a tax (thus skirting the commerce clause completely). this gives romney a great line -- a president who vowed never to raise taxes on the middle class and the poor has just introduced a brand new tax.

>>>> Obama's original contention was this was not a tax, but ironically this is the grounds on which he won this. Romney is opposing Obama and yet, this was his plan originally. I thought Scalia, for all his broccoli reductio ad absurdums, would have had a position closer to Roberts' considering he is a constitutionalist (at least this was my impression anyway). Ironies galore, but the more I think about it, Roberts' position is valid in limiting the SC's role just to the validity of the law.

did you read a few articles i posted about scalia in another thread? all indications is that he has become senile in his dotage. i used to admire him for his intellect despite the fact that his worldview was diametrically opposite mine on most issues. now i and others of my political hue have no reason to respect him despite our differences with him. simply put he is no longer fit to serve.

>>>>> He is shifting into judicial activism which is something I don't like. I have mixed feelings about Obamacare. I like some of the elements, but am uncomfortable with the expanding powers of taxation. Roberts is basically saying that it is a fait accompli and it is not the court's job, but rather the public's to sort out. That is remarkable judicial restraint. Scalia also blabbered something partisan when the bush-gore recount was in process. I had voted for bush, but did not like Scalia overstepping his bounds out of the courtroom. There was a time when I thought judicial activism was fine, even preferred, but have come to the POV that without checks and balances the system is screwed in the long run.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:29 am

panini press wrote: Nobody other than him will ever know his motives for this ruling, ...

or you can read his written opinion to get some insight. i don't know if i'll ever have the time to read it in the original but i've been getting scraps of it from the usual sources. here is a piece in the times which highlighted some of his writing which i find deeply insightful (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/a-justice-in-chief/?hp):

But he didn’t speak for the court in the entirety of his tax analysis.
Instead, speaking only for himself, he acknowledged that he found it a
stretch to call the penalty a tax. “The statute reads more naturally as a
command to buy insurance than as a tax,” he said, adding that he would
have upheld the mandate as a regulation of commerce if he thought the
Constitution permitted it. “It is only because the Commerce Clause does
not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing
power question,” he said – necessary because “we have a duty to construe
a statute to save it, if fairly possible.”

in other words when it comes to ruling directly on the constitutionality of a piece of enacted legislation, his instinct is to save it if at all possible, and he is going to find grounds as minimal as possible to save it. unless something is clearly and egregiously unconstitutional, we can expect him not to overturn enacted legislation. this is my reading.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:56 am

I think he simply followed the Principle of Americanism in deciding his vote:

"What is in it for me?"

by Maria S Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:43 pm

Well, I'll be observing..the man, who is interesting..thankfully, my new hero is not just a Constitutional Law- Robot..'Impregnable Fortress'- now, that's a new one to me! *Ooh..and the sound of "Equal Justice under the Law" sounds pretty good too- anywhere, anytime.

John Roberts Jokes That He'll Spend Some Time In An 'Impregnable Fortress'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/john-roberts-joke_n_1637841.html

Excerpts:

He delivered the joke Friday at a federal court conference at a posh Pennsylvania resort.

Roberts declined to answer a question about the landmark opinion issued Thursday. But he says he hopes the court will be remembered for "protecting equal justice under the law."

by Maria S Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:56 pm

*All kidding aside..may be it is a good idea for him to be careful and stay in a Fortress- for safety reasons (not sure if SC Justices have bodyguards).

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:57 pm

Maria S wrote:Well, I'll be observing..the man, who is interesting..thankfully, my new hero is not just a Constitutional Law- Robot..

there's nothing robotic about applying tests of constitutionality. that much is evident to me though i have nothing to do with the legal profession or jurisprudence. it's a deeply human exercise.

by Idéfix Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:09 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in other words when it comes to ruling directly on the constitutionality of a piece of enacted legislation, his instinct is to save it if at all possible, and he is going to find grounds as minimal as possible to save it. unless something is clearly and egregiously unconstitutional, we can expect him not to overturn enacted legislation. this is my reading.

Exactly -- that is the conservative principle that I was referring to. If you want your judges to be non-activist, this is the standard of judgment you should expect from them whenever any duly enacted law is challenged.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:55 pm

a parallel from an older case:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/in-health-care-ruling-roberts-steals-a-move-from-john-marshalls-playbook/259121/

by Idéfix Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:07 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:a parallel from an older case:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/in-health-care-ruling-roberts-steals-a-move-from-john-marshalls-playbook/259121/

Good one, thanks for posting.

by Idéfix Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:09 pm

Maria S wrote:*All kidding aside..may be it is a good idea for him to be careful and stay in a Fortress- for safety reasons (not sure if SC Justices have bodyguards).

My sentiments exactly. There is no shortage of crazy people and there is no shortage of guns. The one thing that might stop any threat to Roberts is the fact that Obama gets to pick his replacement; but like the geniuses who want to move to Canada because Obamacare is socialist, there are many opponents of the law who can't think that deep.

by Idéfix Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:20 pm

Maria S wrote:*Did not know that both Justice. Roberts and Pres. Obama..were the students of the same man- Constitutional law Prof.Lawrence Tribe at Harvard..how cool is that for any Prof/Educator - two of his students are CJ of the SC and the President of USA!

That is interesting. Quite a fascinating story this professor has -- grew up in a Shanghai ghetto, descended from Belarussian Jews, never held public office but taught both the president and the Chief Justice. Looks like Clinton considered nominating him to the Supreme Court, but went with Ruth Bader Ginsburg instead.

by truthbetold Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:35 pm

Roberts is an esta lished legal pundit. He knows the constitution. He asked the tax question in oral arguments. Tax argument was also part of obama discussions on the law. Tax argument wnas also a part of obama soliciter generals arguments in sc. While i could not the dots before the event roberts seem to have planned his vote for a long time.

Instead of seeing shadows where non exist let us appreciate roberts for his intellect and bravery.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:58 pm

three months ago:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-29-2012/march-29--2012---pt--2

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:06 pm

and that goes to the heart of why i think scalia is vile. don't obligate yourself to that? for all his idiocy 43 had the foresight to know that this guy would not make a good chief justice. good for him.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/03/justice-scalia-let-them-die.html

by Sponsored content