SCOTUS Open Thread

Here’s a thread for the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will follow this morning’s decision.

Yesterday, I saw a Romney sticker on a Prius. Is that a sign? Perhaps it’s like a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. No little voice in my head said “don’t look back”, so I’m not sure.

I’m leaving for a vacation today and won’t be posting regularly for a couple of weeks. No matter what happens today, it’s good news for Republicans in general and Mitt Romney in particular, but I will miss writing about it.






345 replies
  1. 1
    Comrade Mary says:

    I’m actually getting that sinking feeling. Do I dare open SCOTUSblog?

  2. 2
    LGRooney says:

    Little bubbling in the back of my brain wonders whether the right-wing won’t get its way on the health care ruling and that is why they want to vote on the Holder contempt charge today, i.e., distract from the bad news.

  3. 3
    PeakVT says:

    We’re doomed. Doomed, I tells ya.

  4. 4
    chopper says:

    Perhaps it’s like a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac.

    the world’s gone to hell in a handbasket ever since bob dylan started doing commercials for cadillac.

  5. 5
    Mark S. says:

    Yes! Affirmed!

    Oh, that’s for some case called Alvarez.

  6. 6
    General Stuck says:

    No time for wailing. It’s a war, peeples.

  7. 7
    SGEW says:

    I’ve got a bad feeling about this.

  8. 8
  9. 9
    ericblair says:

    @Mark S.:

    Oh, that’s for some case called Alvarez.

    As far as I know, that’s the one about a law banning lying about having a Medal of Honor. Decision striking down the law on 1A grounds upheld.

  10. 10
    dmsilev says:

    Health care opinion up now. Here we go…

  11. 11
    Valdivia says:

    I am so freaked out I think people will hear me scream all the way to India if they bring the whole thing down.

  12. 12
    beltane says:

    @General Stuck: Yeah, no matter the outcome the GOP must be destroyed if we want to have nice things as a country.

  13. 13

    SCOTUSblog just said they have 520,000 people watching their liveblog right now. They also said it cost them $25,000 to do the upgrades they needed to handle today’s traffic. Pretty amazing.

  14. 14

    “We have health care opinion.

    Parsing it asap.”

  15. 15
    Chris says:

    @Comrade Mary:

    I’m actually getting that sinking feeling. Do I dare open SCOTUSblog?

    I’ve had the sinking feeling for most of last week. At this point I’m at that odd, beyond-the-sinking-feeling, “fuck it, just tell me what happened” point.

  16. 16
    dmsilev says:

    “The individual mandate survives as a tax”

  17. 17
    General Stuck says:

    WIN!!

  18. 18
    cyntax says:

    The mandate survives as a tax per SCOTUSblog.

  19. 19
    ericblair says:

    Mandate survives as a tax

  20. 20
  21. 21
    Mark S. says:

    The individual mandate survives as a tax.

    Ha! See ya in two years!

  22. 22
    Amanda in the South Bay says:

    “10:08
    Amy Howe: The individual mandate survives as a tax.”

  23. 23
    frapalinger says:

    I’ve seen one Romney Bumpsticker. One.

  24. 24
    General Stuck says:

    WIN!!

  25. 25
    homerhk says:

    Mandate survives

  26. 26
    Ordovician Bighorn Dolomite (formerly rarely seen poster Fe E) says:

    Mandate survives as tax? Does that mean what I think it means?

  27. 27
    Laertes says:

    Woot.

  28. 28
    Dave says:

    BOOM goes the dynamite!! SCOTUSblog says the mandate is upheld.

  29. 29
    flukebucket says:

    Yesterday, I saw a Romney sticker on a Prius.

    GOProud?

  30. 30

    Individual mandate survives as a tax according to SCOTUSblog.

  31. 31
    hildebrand says:

    If it is upheld, the fire baggers will be screaming about why Obama sand bagged.the public option.

  32. 32
    Tim F. says:

    Bad? WTF? CNN said the mandate went down.

  33. 33
    mothra says:

    This is crazy.

  34. 34
    Valdivia says:

    enjoy your vacay mistermix

  35. 35
    dmsilev says:

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if a million conservatives cried out in terror and unfortunately were not suddenly silenced.

  36. 36
    Quincy says:

    Fanfuckingtastic

  37. 37
    NonyNony says:

    @Tim F.:

    They say “It’s very complicated, so we’re still figuring it out”

    Apparently the mandate is constitutional – I wonder what’s left in the opinion that is complicated.

  38. 38
    butler says:

    Per the liveblog!

    So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court

  39. 39
    BGK says:

    CNN briefly flashed a banner that the individual mandate was struck down. Now it’s back to the “Stolen valor” bit. Clowns.

  40. 40
  41. 41
    Rorgg says:

    “The insividual mandate survives as a tax.”

    Color me moderately surprised.

  42. 42
    mothra says:

    This is crazy.

  43. 43
    hildebrand says:

    If it is upheld, the fire baggers will be screaming about why Obama sand bagged.the public option.

  44. 44
    Rorgg says:

    “The insividual mandate survives as a tax.”

    Color me moderately surprised.

  45. 45
    Anya says:

    I am afraid to look. What’s the verdict?

  46. 46
    Violet says:

    Upheld? Holy cow!

  47. 47
    Dave says:

    Scalia’s head is going to pop. The Medicaid part was limited but not invalidated.

  48. 48
    Tim F. says:

    Is anyone here not following SCOTUSblog? God help their servers.

  49. 49
  50. 50
  51. 51
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    First announcement is made.

  52. 52

    Stuck in line at the DMV.

    Really wishing I was in front of a computer right now.

  53. 53
    Rorgg says:

    “The insividual mandate survives as a tax.”

    Color me moderately surprised.

  54. 54
    Spectre says:

    CNN says the mandate was killed. Msnbc says it survived. WTF.

  55. 55
    cyntax says:

    …but, according to SCOTUSblog, the opinion is “very complicated.”

    Medicare provision is limited but not invalidated.

  56. 56
  57. 57
    Dave says:

    The ACA is upheld as per ScotusBlog!!

  58. 58
    Spectre says:

    CNN says the mandate was killed. Msnbc says it survived. WTF.

  59. 59
    tcolberg says:

    SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

  60. 60
    General Stuck says:

    The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read Scotus blog

  61. 61
    askew says:

    I would trust SCOTUSBlog over CNN.

    The Medicaid expansion is upheld but limited. That is encouraging. I thought that was going down.

  62. 62
    Amanda in the South Bay says:

    “Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”

  63. 63
    butler says:

    Scotusblog:

    Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

  64. 64
    mothra says:

    Upheld uphelp the individual mandate is upheld

  65. 65
    PeakVT says:

    I was wrong. Yay!

  66. 66
    Culture of Truth says:

    “Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday that President Obama will himself be monitoring the conversation on SCOTUSblog”

    ** TOUCHDOWN DANCE **

  67. 67
    zzyzx says:

    cnn.com still saying struck down.

  68. 68

    It will be really funny if the big story from today is that CNN totally blew it on their breaking analysis (they said individual mandate was overturned)

  69. 69
    Mark S. says:

    How is Fox going to spin this as a HUGE DEFEAT FOR OBAMA?

  70. 70
    cyntax says:

    From SCOTUSblog: “The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”

  71. 71
    j says:

    MSNBC and AP are saying SCOTUS has redefines the IM as a “tax”, so that sounds like it is OK.

    The entire thing has been upheld with the exception of the individual states right to set costs.

    IT can only be interpreted as a complete victory for Obama and the Democrats in congress.

  72. 72
    zzyzx says:

    cnn.com still saying struck down.

  73. 73
    askew says:

    The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

    Holy crap. That is excellent news.

  74. 74
    Kirbster says:

    On C-Span3, that’s a damned ugly mob out in front of the courthouse.

  75. 75
    Bullsmith says:

    The ACA survives intact it seems.

    Personally, I think the political calculation was that if you actually strike down ACA it would be like actually outlawing abortion at a federal level- it would energize the Dems more than the base. Now Romney and the team can run hard against Obamacare, instead of answering what they’d do instead.

    Honestly, I think Roberts was perfectly willing to trash his reputation for a partisan victory, but this one wasn’t worth it. Now our overlords will tell us how mavericky, independant and bipartisan he is for pretty much the rest of his life.

    God I’ve become cynical.

  76. 76
    Death Panel Truck says:

    Explains why Fat Tony was so pissed off the other day. He didn’t get his way on the ACA.

  77. 77
    dmsilev says:

    Huh. From ScotusBlog: “Tom: Chief Justice Roberts’ vote saved the ACA.”

  78. 78
    ericblair says:

    CNN website still says mandate struck down. Way to go with the credibility thing, dickheads.

  79. 79
    chopper says:

    @dmsilev:

    YEEEEEHAWWWWWW argle bargle

  80. 80
    Laertes says:

    “Chief Justice Roberts’ vote saved the ACA.” – Tom Goldstein @ SCOTUSBLOG

    Did not see that one coming. The court isn’t quite what I thought it had become. This is a nice surprise.

  81. 81
    Nicole says:

    Oh thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

    Except CNN is claiming they struck down the mandate. Help? What’s the deal?

    EDIT: Never mind. Faux Lite has corrected themselves.

  82. 82
    PeakVT says:

    Interesting that it was only 5-4 to uphold (current reporting). Kennedy ended up to the right of Roberts.

  83. 83
    General Stuck says:

    Roberts could NOT jump that shark. Too far for a Chief Justice, of HIS court legacy.

  84. 84
    Chris says:

    Well, you win some, you lose some, and we won this one.

  85. 85
    Zifnab says:

    Well shit. Finally Roberts calls a strike in our favor. I’m slightly less pissed at the Dem Senate for letting him through confirmations six years ago.

  86. 86
    dmsilev says:

    Meanwhile, in traditional media the New York Times just says “Supreme Court rules on Health Care” without actually saying what the decision is. Cmon, guys, you’re 5 minutes behind the curve…

  87. 87
    Maude says:

    It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

  88. 88
    handsmile says:

    @Valdivia:

    Now you can get yourself to bed! You’ve earned yourself a good long nap!

    “The entire law upheld.”

    WIN! WIN! WIN! for our team!!

  89. 89
    burnspbesq says:

    @hildebrand:

    If it is upheld, the fire baggers will be screaming about why Obama sand bagged.the public option

    Put em in a soundproof room and let em scream all they want.

  90. 90
    Soonergrunt says:

    @dmsilev: That’s awesome.

  91. 91
    Cap'n Magic says:

    Now lets see what Mr. Market does today, now that ACA survives.

  92. 92
    flukebucket says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Son of a bitch!! LOL!

  93. 93
    askew says:

    @Culture of Truth:

    “Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday that President Obama will himself be monitoring the conversation on SCOTUSblog”

    That’s pretty cool. I hope he comes out and makes an announcement about the decision.

  94. 94
    Killjoy says:

    I shall quench my thirst for the tears of wingnuts today.

  95. 95
    Brian R. says:

    @Mark S.:

    I’m watching Fox News right now, and it’s almost as good as election night in 2008. Bill Hemmer is interviewing Karl Rove about how Republicans will move to repeal health care now.

    Megyn Kelly is now finding the silver lining that the Court may have upheld the ACA but it “clipped Congress’s wings” in trying to expand its commerce clause powers.

    And there’s a real sense that Roberts has betrayed the holy cause.

    God, it’s delightful.

  96. 96
    Corbin Dallas Multipass says:

    If I were CNN, I would be pretty embarrassed given all the other major media org headlines.

  97. 97
    dmsilev says:

    @Soonergrunt: Better is CNN, who currently is saying this:

    In a landmark decision that will impact the nation for decades, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a key provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law, ruling that requiring people to have health insurance violates the Constitution.

    Oops.

    Compare with actual text from the ruling, via SCOTUSblog:

    The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

  98. 98
    General Stuck says:

    CNN fucks up again. CBS says upheld. Toobin needs a new line of work

  99. 99
    Comrade Mary says:

    Oh, man. I had been hoping against hope that it was upheld, but I didn’t dare say anything because I was also hoping to get my first contract since freakin’ December and that came through a few days ago, so I didn’t want to be greedy and upset the gods. Or the cats. Or whoever runs things.

  100. 100
    tomvox1 says:

    @ericblair:

    Now it says:

    Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama’s signature health care law.

    Lazarus not dead at all actually. Oops. LOL.
    Gotta say I am giddy. Suck it, GOP. And Scalia. Hahahahaha… Too early for champagne?

  101. 101
    ericblair says:

    CNN issues correction: “backs all parts of President’s law”. Nice work, jerkoffs, glad to see you’ve got the A team running the show on one of the biggest news days of the last four years.

  102. 102
    eric says:

    I never thought I would be tears-on-the-eyes happy that the Supreme Court upheld a Heritage Foundation based piece of legislation!!!!

    In many ways I hope that it starts us toward a saner health care policy, but for the millions of people this will help — a-effing-men

  103. 103
    Alex S. says:

    Nice. I guess the only negative aspect is that Citizens United cannot be spun as the decision of a partisan Supreme Court anymore.

  104. 104
    OGLiberal says:

    Here’s the correction email alert I just got from CNN….this is not a spoof:

    Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama’s signature health care law, including the individual mandate that requires all to have health insurance.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

  105. 105
    Amanda in the South Bay says:

    CNN now says “Court rules on Obamacare”

    They can’t even post the result as a headline? What wankers.

  106. 106
    Amanda in the South Bay says:

    CNN now says “Court rules on Obamacare”

    They can’t even post the result as a headline? What wankers.

  107. 107
    SatanicPanic says:

    Haha suck it wingnuts, looks like it’s been upheld

  108. 108

    @Mark S.: I just checked in they have a big NOBAMA photo/banner and still haven’t admitted it was upheld. Denial, it’s a beautiful thing.

  109. 109
    victory says:

    CNN had it wrong for 10 minutes saying it was struck down! That is an eternity on teh internets!

  110. 110
    Linnaeus says:

    Awesome. Now let’s get to work on making health care law & policy even better.

  111. 111
    dmsilev says:

    CNN wins todays “Excellence in Reporting” award…

  112. 112
    Anya says:

    That sound you hear is wingnut heads exploding.

  113. 113
    Linnaeus says:

    Awesome. Now let’s get to work on making health care law & policy even better.

  114. 114
    joes527 says:

    Copied from that other thread:

    Am I correct that the gestalt of this entire session is that Scalia go spanked?

    So while our courts may do stupid and partisan things (I’m looking at you, CU) it isn’t totally corrupt.

  115. 115

    @Mark S.: I just checked in they have a big NOBAMA photo/banner and still haven’t admitted it was upheld. Denial, it’s a beautiful thing.

  116. 116
    Ash says:

    I’m pretty sure we’re all just living in The Matrix right now.

  117. 117
    Scott S. says:

    I’m feeling dim this morning. What does “upheld as a tax” mean? Is it throwing an easy out to Boehner to zero out the funding as a tax?

    Sorry to be so slow-witted this morning. I’m operating without orange juice… :(

  118. 118
    Davis X. Machina says:

    CNN’s take is ‘The court struck down mandates, so Obama lost. That the court determining the mandate is actually a tax, and that tax passes muster, and the legislation with it, is irrelevant.’

    As bad as Fox.

  119. 119
    Jeff Schmitz says:

    Prepare for wingnuts to scream, “ROBERTS IS THE NEW SOUTER!!!1!!”

  120. 120
    sloan says:

    I think I’ll watch Fox “News” for the first time in years just for laughs.

  121. 121
    CarolineBlue says:

    Ha! CNN most trusted name in news my behind! More like ‘Most Busted Name in News!’

  122. 122
    PeakVT says:

    Current liveblog seems to indicate that the while the whole thing has been upheld, some of the enforcement mechanisms have been nixed. Might be important, might not.

  123. 123
    liberal says:

    @beltane:

    Yeah, no matter the outcome the GOP must be destroyed if we want to have nice things as a country.

    FTFY.

    In addition, it would be nice if the Democratic Party leadership starting thinking that way.

  124. 124
    shortstop says:

    Damn, this is (understandably) loading slowly. This is such wonderful, wonderful news.

    Am I understanding correctly that Kennedy opined against the mandate? I know from SCOTUSblog that Roberts joined the left of the court.

  125. 125

    Wheeeeeeeee!

    The sound of wingnut heads exploding is deafening.

  126. 126
    Lojasmo says:

    Never thought I would say “thank you, Chief Justice Roberts.”

  127. 127
    Steeplejack says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Why, you . . . you–fuckhead!

  128. 128
    eric says:

    They still said outside commerce clause powers — INSANE

  129. 129
    MrSnrub says:

    @zzyzx:

    CNN: Dewey defeats ACA

  130. 130
    shortstop says:

    Never mind–just saw Kennedy is reading from the dissent.

  131. 131
    chopper says:

    the court struck down the mandate under commerce clause grounds, but upheld it 5-4 under the power of congress to levy taxes.

  132. 132
    one two seven says:

    It seems like CNN’s misreading came from the fact that the opinion stated that the mandate violated the commerce clause, but that since the mandate is actually a tax that doesn’t really matter.

  133. 133
    Mark S. says:

    Lyle: Kennedy is reading from the dissent.

    Oh please please please tell me Scalia wrote his own dissent.

  134. 134
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @dmsilev: It sounds like the Court didn’t touch on the Commerce Clause issue. Weird that Kennedy went with the Right.

  135. 135
    butler says:

    @Scott S.: The Court ruled that the mandate was not possible under the Commerce clause, but it was possible under Congress’s powers to tax. No, they can’t just zero it out without repealing or replacing it.

  136. 136
    Alex S. says:

    CNN is such a joke… maybe they looked only at Kennedy’s vote and ignored Roberts, or maybe they trusted some anonymous source (probably an optimistic republican one).
    Roberts being the fifth vote is really interesting. He’s either concerned of his legacy or he’s helping insurance companies. Kennedy’s vote is disappointing.

  137. 137
    Valdivia says:

    @handsmile:

    Thank you handsmile. :)

    Now I am too excited to sleep. I will wait for later to have that drink though.

  138. 138
    Surreal American says:

    Conservative court upholds Republican-inspired healthcare legislation.

    Film at 11!

  139. 139

    Awesome. Now we just have to fight to make sure we maintain control of the White House or at least one house of Congress so we can stave off the GOP attempts to defund/kill it until people get used to the law and see some benefits from its implementation.

    I personally will always remember that it was the GOP that tried to price my wife out of the health insurance market.

  140. 140
    Death Panel Truck says:

    @dmsilev: And Dewey Defeats Truman.

  141. 141
    dmsilev says:

    Wonder whether any GOP representatives are going to be tempted to “spike the ball” in defiance of Boehner’s warning memo the other day?

  142. 142
    Hubris says:

    Secondary news: The delusional nature of Dennis G.’s racial fever dream is confirmed.

  143. 143
    Legalize says:

    Now John Roberts will get a taste of wingnut butt-hurt. It won’t be pretty for the Chief Justice.

  144. 144
    Ordovician Bighorn Dolomite (formerly rarely seen poster Fe E) says:

    @Mark S.:

    A very good question. I just checked and they are still trynig to figure out how to do that. They still have a huge NObamacare headline. and a small “breaking news update” tag above it.

  145. 145
    Rommie says:

    Mr. Broccoli Mandate is having a sad…

  146. 146
    Cap'n Magic says:

    Kennedy’s dissent: “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”

  147. 147
    Alex S. says:

    Kennedy says that it is the opinion of the minority that the entire act is invalid. Wow…. Absolutely crazy.

  148. 148
    Linda Featheringill says:

    Remember guys, we didn’t promise Boehner that we wouldn’t dance in the streets if it broke our way.

    [happy dance, happy dance, happy dance]

  149. 149
    eric says:

    @shortstop: I think that this radical, ideological dissent will come to define Kennedy among scholars in a less than flattering way, given the perception of him as a traditional “centrist’ vote.

    My take: Scalia’s tirades from the bench have been directed at ROBERTS the entire time, as condescending lectures for abandoning true conservative jurisprudence.

  150. 150
    Slightly_peeved says:

    Grats people! That decision actually makes sense. The idea that rewarding or punishing particular purchases with tax increases or decreases could be unconstitutional boggles the mind, without even bringing the Commerce Clause into it.

    Eta: what, they said it couldn’t pass muster under the commerce clause? That’s screwed up. But, still one more step towards making the health insurers utilities.

  151. 151
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @shortstop:

    He’s doing the dissent and says he and the rest of the minority would’ve held the law invalidated as a whole.

  152. 152
    chopper says:

    @Mark S.:

    mr. swing vote says the whole act should have been struck down.

  153. 153
    Culture of Truth says:

    Is it throwing an easy out to Boehner to zero out the funding as a tax?

    It’s not a question of funding.

  154. 154
    The Tragically Flip says:

    I’m amazed that people here think this vindicates the Roberts court as a legitimately functioning institution.

    1) Roberts found the mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, but gave himself an out on the taxing power. He still voted to overturn decades of commerce clause legal interpretation.

    2) It was still 5-4, when 19 out of 21 legal scholars thought it was slam dunk constituitonal, it barely survives.

    No, don’t put me on the “reassured” list. If you just desperately want to believe SCOTUS works as intented, I guess you can prop up that fiction a bit longer on this, but it should never have been this close.

  155. 155
    ericblair says:

    @Mark S.:

    Oh please please please tell me Scalia wrote his own dissent.

    I’m wondering whether the Supreme Court loosened obscenity restrictions on TV channels so that Scalia could read his dissent on the air.

  156. 156
    Original Lee says:

    @LGRooney: You appear to be correct. I heard some stuff on the radio on the way in to work, where actual true facts about the mandate were actually allowed on the air (for instance, the Republicans were for the mandate before they were against it), so I was wondering if there was some leakage. Whew.

  157. 157
    Tripod says:

    CNN goes with Supreme Court defeats Obama. The journalistic equivalent of having watery shit running down their legs in public.

    Nice going.

  158. 158
    Spectre says:

    I think the republicans knew this was going down, which is why they went forward with the Holder thing, to try to change the story

    Their rage is glorious!

  159. 159
    Zagloba says:

    Yeah, apparently Kennedy went full wingnut, called the entire act unconstitutional.

  160. 160
    zmulls says:

    It seems to me that Roberts split the baby. He didn’t want to have a Dred Scott decision on his hands. He went along with “it violates the Commerce clause” but said “well, it really is a tax so on that narrow basis I will affirm.” Very neat dancing on the top of that pin.

    I’m really surprised to see Kennedy leading the dissent, with Roberts on the other side. I would have thought Kennedy and Roberts were going to track together.

    And it makes my heart sink that Kennedy is moving slowly that far to the right…it doesn’t bode well for future decisions.

  161. 161
    RossInDetroit says:

    But what about John McCain? Is this good news for him?

  162. 162
    Felinious Wench says:

    Fuck.Yes.

    That is all.

  163. 163
    EconWatcher says:

    Question: will Roberts evolve further to the left, after he spends the next several months being denounced as a traitor and possible closet Kenyan, by all of his former allies?

    Remember, Harry Blackmun was a conservative when he first got on the Court, and used to vote with Warren Burger on everything (they called them the Minnesota twins). Then, partly as a result of some personal animosities that arose, Blackmun began a long slide to the left flank.

  164. 164
    Anya says:

    @dmsilev: It just shows that CNN was ready with that headline. THey expected SCATUS to struck down the law. It’s like writing celebrity obituaries in advance.

  165. 165
    LAC says:

    Yes, please take a vacation. Get some sun and smell the grass (the green sort) – your doom, gloom and cynicism is just exhausting.

    Get out and vote, folks and stay positive!!

  166. 166
    General Stuck says:

    @Cap’n Magic:

    I kind of suspect a little ass covering by Roberts and Kennedy, of making this a 5 to 4 decision, with Roberts taking the wrath from the right wing. Leaving it still a bitter divide between right and left, at least in spirit, though thankfully, not substance.

  167. 167
    burnspbesq says:

    To their credit, the yahoos at Volokh are being pretty gracious about the court stealing their pony.

  168. 168
    Zach says:

    A million law professors just creamed/frothed their undies. This will be heralded as the new stitch in time. I don’t know if it is, but that is how it will be portrayed by law professors (i suspect).

  169. 169
    jwb says:

    @frapalinger: we drove straight through the heart of flyover country. Would not have thought there was an election going on. No campaign billboards, exactly one bumper sticker–and that for Obama.

  170. 170

    Celestia, Luna, and Cadence. THANK YOU. We’d have survived, but a very, very good law has remained intact under partisan pressure in the realms of insanity.

  171. 171
    Kay says:

    With this outcome, everyone gets what they want,health care for the uninsured, something to be angry about for the right.
    — @mattyglesias via TweetDeck

  172. 172
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    My guess in advance was something like a 6-3 with Roberts writing an opinion that basically guts Commerce Clause precedent in exchange for giving a green light to this particular law. Horse-trading on the bench.

  173. 173
    j says:

    The wingnut blogs are going nuts. I think they all need to be put on suicide watch. Except Red State, which has nary a word about the ruling. Maybe they already offed themselves.

  174. 174
    Thymezone says:

    Best day since Election Day 2008. Great news. The Three Stooges Plus Kennedy weren’t enough to keep America from being a first world country today.

    Lots of work to do in future congresses to improve the healthcare situation, but this is a worthy first step.

    And to all the naysayers and “Kill the bill” idiots who roamed these hallways and others, only a couple of years ago? Fuck you, very much, and the donkeys you rode in on.

    And Mitt Romney? Go ahead, run against your own healthcare bill now, you sorry emtpy suit piece of crap. Do it, please, so that we can hand you the ass whipping you so richly (pun intended) deserve. Please, build your campaign around it.

  175. 175
    joes527 says:

    @Cap’n Magic:

    Kennedy’s dissent: “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”

    Is there a legalism in that, or is it just really, really bad writing?

  176. 176
    burnspbesq says:

    The opinion is now up on the supreme court website. It’s 193 pages.

  177. 177
    chopper says:

    honestly right now i don’t give a shit about the politics. untold tens of millions of americans will now have access to affordable healthcare.

  178. 178

    Celestia, Luna, and Cadence. THANK YOU. We’d have survived, but a very, very good law has remained intact under partisan pressure in the realms of insanity.

  179. 179
    dmsilev says:

    Random wingnut in the RedState comment section:

    I believe, and I hate to say it, that this is pure politics.
    Roberts just delivered the election to Romney, and I think that was deliberate.

    I used to speak Wingnut, but my fluency has waned somewhat. Can anyone interpret this?

  180. 180
    PeakVT says:

    @PeakVT: Typo at SCOTUSblog. Tom: Apologies – you can’t refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

  181. 181
    The Tragically Flip says:

    @zmulls:

    It seems to me that Roberts split the baby. He didn’t want to have a Dred Scott decision on his hands. He went along with “it violates the Commerce clause” but said “well, it really is a tax so on that narrow basis I will affirm.” Very neat dancing on the top of that pin.

    Exactly. And even so, four Supreme Court justices just found that Congress does not have the power to impose a $500 tax on all Americans that is waived if they provide proof of health insurance. Forget the commerce clause stuff, I shudder to think what type of bizarre wingnut logic could support that claim. Maybe they’ll rule the 16th Amendment unconsitutional next?

  182. 182
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    Awww MAN we wasted a perfectly good EMOPROG CURL UP AND DIE or several million of them.

  183. 183
    CaseyL says:

    I first went to TPM, where they said Roberts had voted to uphold the mandate; then I went to CNN, which said the mandate had been overturned.

    When I saw that the Court had unequivocably upheld the law, I was stunned, then I screamed “Thank You!,” and then I cried.

    I honestly did not expect this. I was sure the law would be overturned. I can’t express how relieved I am.

    (Also very pleased, on purely parochial terms, that this kicks Rob McKenna in the nuts and hopefully undermines his campaign for governor of Washington.)

  184. 184
    eric says:

    Roberts is just another unelected Obama czar.

  185. 185
    Punchy says:

    My take: Scalia’s tirades from the bench have been directed at ROBERTS the entire time, as condescending lectures for abandoning true conservative REPUBLICAN jurisprudence.

    Fixed

  186. 186
    General Stuck says:

    @EconWatcher:

    I think Roberst tried to retain a shred of federalist creds by justifying his vote as a tax issue, rather than the boogyman commerce clause. And noting that diff in his affirmation.

  187. 187
    flukebucket says:

    Well I have heard 6-3 and 5-4. Still scanning internet for 7-2, 8-1 and unanimous.

  188. 188
    Cacti says:

    I was wrong. I figured either 6-3 in favor, or 5-4 against.

  189. 189
    Comrade Mary says:

    Fucking CNN and fucking framing: their new headline is “Correction: U.S. Supreme Court upholds President Obama’s health care law to make Americans buy health insurance.” Because the President is a big meanie.

  190. 190
    RossInDetroit says:

    In 4 years all of the features of the ACA will be so well accepted that anyone who proposes repealing it will be looked on with pity like one of Paul’s gold standard loonies.
    This is a big play in a very long game. And today everyone won whether they wanted to or not.

  191. 191
    dr. bloor says:

    @Alex S.:

    Kennedy says that it is the opinion of the minority that the entire act is invalid. Wow…. Absolutely crazy.

    The thing that struck me during oral arguments about Kennedy’s questions was that he didn’t seem to be probing, he really seemed quite confused about the nature of the arguments at times.

    I’m not sure whose frontal lobes are going faster, his or Fat Tony’s, although I’d bet one of them is down with a stroke before Obama finishes his second term.

  192. 192
    GregB says:

    Eat your broccoli mofos!

  193. 193
    Scott S. says:

    Surprised to hear Kennedy saying he wanted to throw the whole thing out. Sounds like we misjudged the level of his conservatism all along — he’s just as crazy as Alito or Scalia.

  194. 194
    Cheap Jim says:

    Isn’t the “whole act invalid” more about the severability question?

  195. 195
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Slightly_peeved: I think this is an attempt to limit what the government can claim under Commerce.

  196. 196
    Hal says:

    Wow. I’m fucking stunned since everyone has been so doom and gloom everywhere since March.

    Can someone give Joe Biden a microphone to repeat his this is a big fucking deal again?

    Oh, and has Scalia hemorrhaged yet? Maybe he’ll resign in disgust like he promised to do if Gore was elected.

  197. 197
    KXB says:

    I guess CNN has its own version of “Dewey Defeats Truman”

    While I am a bit relieved, it should not have been close. This law may have been controversial and unpopular, but it was clearly written to be constitutional. That a nation of 300 million has to sit by their radios, TV, and computers to find out how these 9 decide, based not on law, but on their own political prejudices is unsettling.

  198. 198
  199. 199
  200. 200
    JPL says:

    @Kay: I am eating my words on the previous blog. I am in shock.

  201. 201
    Steeplejack says:

    @Alex S.:

    I rewound the DVR. Initial CNN report was by Kate Baldwin at 10:07, quoting “producer Phil [Bill?] Mears.”

    Baldwin:

    The individual mandate is not a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. So it appears as if the Supreme Court justices have struck down the individual mandate–the centerpiece of the health care legislation.

    Then CNN slapped up a banner saying “Supreme Ct. Kills Individual Mandate.” Good times.

  202. 202

    Meanwhile, the “liberal” CNN failed to anticipate this ….

    http://southernbeale.wordpress.....n-edition/

  203. 203
    joes527 says:

    Balloon Juice needs another hamster this morning.

  204. 204
    zmulls says:

    It may be too much to expect a slow evolution on the CJ’s part, but it’s not out of the question.

    After a few years of getting spittle on him from Scalia, Roberts (who’s genteelness is part of his self-image) may be thinking “Man, these guys are fricking NUTS. Maybe I don’t agree with them as much as I thought I did….”

    One can hope….

  205. 205

    @EconWatcher:

    Question: will Roberts evolve further to the left, after he spends the next several months being denounced as a traitor and possible closet Kenyan, by all of his former allies?

    I’m wondering this too. He’s going to find out what his “allies” are made of.

  206. 206
    Brian R. says:

    I bet Fox News is going to be describing John Roberts as an Obama appointee within the hour.

  207. 207
    General Stuck says:

    @dmsilev:

    Punt

  208. 208
    chopper says:

    reading this decision, roberts really walked the edge here. he got to get the court to put up a wall with regards to the scope of the commerce clause, but still uphold the mandate under other grounds.

  209. 209
    Jim Pharo says:

    The tax rationale is actually good news. We will come to think of this as something like paying taxes, rather than something like buying a tv. Given the GOP’s desire to play market-maker, I’m glad this is more like the fee you pay for a license plate than the digital tv converter the GOP gave me a $40 coupon for…

    Also, too: Methinks the Chief is concerned about his legacy. This may be even better news: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may have enough self-esteem left to care that he not be seen as the GOP’s top operative. Yay!

  210. 210
    Keith G says:

    Team Obama and democrats better get prepared for an energetic and vicious counter attack from now until november

  211. 211
    hueyplong says:

    1. A short and fairly half-hearted “told you so” from those of us who are lawyers and who got fairly tired of the scorn of non-lawyers so sure it was going to get struck down.

    2. It’s half-hearted because you lunatics were more right than I am comfortable acknowledging. 4 justices were totally happy with the crazy and remain willing to do a 180 on precedent purely as an exercise in starting with the desired political result and working back. Fat Tony is a total embarrassment at this point.

    3. Those who saw Fat Tony’s screed on AZ immigration as a hint of what was brewing were probably right. Fat Tony throws tantrums when he gets his diapers in a bunch.

    4. Nothing is ever over. Those who see “vote based on fears about the Supreme Court” as a weak reason to pick a particular president could not be more wrong.

  212. 212
    Felanius Kootea says:

    Oh my God I still can’t believe Roberts joined the majority decision and Kennedy went full metal wingnut!

  213. 213
    Sasha says:

    America … Fuck Yeah!

  214. 214
    shortstop says:

    @GregB: Love it.

    I’ll have to read this thread later when it’s loading faster. Meanwhile, I’m going to go cry in the shower (working at home). I knew two people well who died prematurely due to lack of health insurance, so this day means a great deal to me…as it does to us all.

  215. 215
    burnspbesq says:

    Can I get a “fuck you, Randy Barnett” from the congregation?

  216. 216
    chopper says:

    @chopper:

    all i gotta say is, thank god for Hooper. the fact that the court was compelled to consider the alternate legal construction for the mandate (a ‘tax’ under article 1 sec. 8) is what saved it.

  217. 217
    eric says:

    @zmulls: You have to seriously wonder about that, given the vitriol from Scalia, which, as a write upstream, clearly was directed at Roberts for his apostasy.

  218. 218
    kindness says:

    I just went over to Redstate to see what the whiners are balling about re the decision.

    They’re crying their poor lil eyes out the big babies. The SCOTUS is no longer an American institution in their eyes now.

    Let’s all mail them pacifiers to make them feel better.

  219. 219
    dr. bloor says:

    @EconWatcher:

    Question: will Roberts evolve further to the left, after he spends the next several months being denounced as a traitor and possible closet Kenyan, by all of his former allies?

    I don’t really see Roberts going the Full Blackmun. He’s a smart guy, and he knows whose on his team. I think today was more about saving his legacy and upholding the corporate interests here rather than any sort of principled shift to the left or show of compassion on his part.

  220. 220
    Josh Mandel's Drinking Buddy says:

    Has Burnsy started his victory lap yet? I have half a mind to join him.

  221. 221
    dr. bloor says:

    @EconWatcher:

    Question: will Roberts evolve further to the left, after he spends the next several months being denounced as a traitor and possible closet Kenyan, by all of his former allies?

    I don’t really see Roberts going the Full Blackmun. He’s a smart guy, and he knows who’s on his team. I think today was more about saving his legacy and upholding the corporate interests here rather than any sort of principled shift to the left or show of compassion on his part.

  222. 222
    AxelFoley says:

    “Chief Justice Roberts’ vote saved the ACA.” – Tom Goldstein @ SCOTUSBLOG

    He owed President Obama for fucking up his swearing in. ;)

  223. 223
    schrodinger's cat says:

    Breathing a sigh of relief. Also too, CNN needs to die, when did they become this pathetic? I remember a time when they were good, they had Judy Woodruff and Bernie Shaw. They had some standards when Ted Turner was in charge.

  224. 224
    GregB says:

    So I take it Boehner need not worry about any spiking of the football from the GOP?

    Harr-de-harr!

  225. 225
    Mark S. says:

    I can’t believe Scalia didn’t write his own opinion. It could have started “The Constitution is dead.”

  226. 226
    General Stuck says:

    The real winners for liberals, should be that 50 million people will get their life saving insurance beginning in 2014, unless somehow the wingnuts can repeal it, which is highly unlikely, at best. And with each passing day, that will become harder to do.

  227. 227
    Kane says:

    How long before Romney takes credit?

  228. 228
    SatanicPanic says:

    @joes527: Kennedy is stupid in his stupidity

  229. 229
    Ash says:

    Part of me is super happy (the part of me that’s a woman and has a pre-existing condition) but mean, we’re just living in some super backwards twilight sort of place right now considering how this thing started and how it’s gotten to this place.

  230. 230
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Xecky Gilchrist: Practice is never wasted…

  231. 231
    Cacti says:

    @dr. bloor:

    I don’t really see Roberts going the Full Blackmun. He’s a smart guy, and he knows whose on his team. I think today was more about saving his legacy and upholding the corporate interests here rather than any sort of principled shift to the left or show of compassion on his part.

    I see Roberts as more of a Melville Fuller (overly friendly to big business) than a Roger Taney-esque radical.

  232. 232
    Violet says:

    This is awesome. I had no idea how keyed up I was about this decision. I feel a massive sense of relief and I’m exhausted.

  233. 233
    dmsilev says:

    Erick son of Erick of the house of Erick:

    It’s a big win for the President and a bad day for freedom. But we can deal with it. It is not the end of the world, the republic, or freedom. It just means we have to fight harder.

    FREEDOM!!!!

  234. 234
    giltay says:

    Here’s the reaction to the CNN story from Canada.

  235. 235
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Wonderful and unexpected.

  236. 236
    smedley says:

    We now know that it is Kennedy, not Roberts, who will be remembered as the next Taney. Roberts, remember, allowed Kennedy to write the CU opinion.

  237. 237
    AxelFoley says:

    @Sasha:

    America … Fuck Yeah!

    Or:

    Obamacare…Fuck Yeah! Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah!

  238. 238
    Chyron HR says:

    @Keith G:

    Pffft. More like Roberts better get prepared for an energetic and vicious counter attack. And when I say “prepared”, I mean “a bulletproof car”.

  239. 239
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Wonderful and unexpected.

  240. 240
    Brian R. says:

    @giltay:

    Awesome.

  241. 241
    Maude says:

    @Steeplejack:
    They keep doing this. He didn’t listen for the next part of the decision. Other news organizations waited until they knew what was what.
    Being first and wrong is not good.

  242. 242
    Kane says:

    How is that broccoli workin’ out for ya?

  243. 243
    MCA1 says:

    @The Tragically Flip: Agree with this. A win’s a win, and I’ll take it, but Kennedy’s falling in line with the hardcore and the fact this wasn’t at least 6-3 is disappointing. The narrow ruling by Roberts also tells us that at least 5 of the justices are itching for the chance to unravel Wickard, Loving and the rest of the Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the last 75 years. He may have just been too afraid to take that leap here. Which I guess is something of a blessing, but I don’t want “Not appearing to be a full-on rightwing radical as my legacy” to be our primary basis for assuming the Court will act rationally in the future. So, yeah, good end result and for the circumstances of the ACA, 5-4’s as good as 9-0, but as matter of legal precedent, this isn’t a great sign.

  244. 244
    Alex S. says:

    @Steeplejack:

    Ah, yes, they wanted to be the FIRST and couldn’t wait 5 more seconds.

    Now I wonder if the republicans are going to campaign against the ‘health-care tax’ or against the ‘liberal Supreme Court’.

  245. 245
    Anya says:

    This ruling highlights the importance of the SCATUS nomination. Dems voters need to keep in mind that if Gore had a clear win, we would have had two more liberal judges, instead of the asshole Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.

  246. 246
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Boy this must be huge, Ol’ Cranky Rupert is on Faux Nooz opining that the end of the world is coming. Just what we need, some rich SOB geezer Aussie opining on how bad this is for us regular people. Now he’s making excuses for splitting his publishing and entertainment companies, finally listing Faux Nooz as what it really is, “Entertainment”.

    Yes, but it’s entertainment for drooling idiots who have to be spoon-fed while angrily idling in their Hoverounds.

  247. 247
    mothra says:

    For good clean fun check out the reaction on Fox News

  248. 248
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    I’d love some of whatever you people are smoking. Yeah, Roberts is worried about his legacy, going liberal, arglebargleblahblahblah.

    Corporations are people and Roberts is their representative on the court. He determined that striking down the mandate would adversely affect the corporate beneficiaries of said mandate. When corporations hurt, Roberts haz a sad.

  249. 249
    Punchy says:

    Why does John Boner even waste his breath with “WE HAF TO REPEEL THE WHOAL TH1NG IMMEDIATLNOWASAP!” Whats the fucking point of this, other than looking like an asshole? Does he REALLY think they can repeal and override a veto? WTF?

  250. 250
    patroclus says:

    I checked CNN early – man, the mandate is gone. That’s really disappointing…

  251. 251

    Best possible outcome: a wingnut driven insane with rage assassinates the Chief Justice, Obama appoints Noam Chomsky to replace him, flowers and ponies all around.

    #notintendedtobeafactualstatement

  252. 252
    Linnaeus says:

    @dr. bloor:

    I don’t really see Roberts going the Full Blackmun. He’s a smart guy, and he knows whose on his team. I think today was more about saving his legacy and upholding the corporate interests here rather than any sort of principled shift to the left or show of compassion on his part.

    That’s exactly what I think is going on here. Roberts preferred to run for 3 yards and the minority wanted a deep pass.

  253. 253
    Cacti says:

    @smedley:

    We now know that it is Kennedy, not Roberts, who will be remembered as the next Taney. Roberts, remember, allowed Kennedy to write the CU opinion

    Bush v. Gore and Citizens United will be the legacy of Kennedy the “moderate”.

  254. 254
    mothra says:

    For good clean fun check out the reaction on Fox News

  255. 255
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    @Chyron HR: Team Obama and democrats better get prepared for an energetic and vicious counter attack from now until november

    Yeah, I agree. The Republicans haven’t yet figured out a way to dial their opposition to Obama up past 11 where it’s been stuck since he was inaugurated, but there’s plenty of room for dusting off the “Activist Judges” contard death threats.

  256. 256
    burnspbesq says:

    David Bernstein’s rant at Volokh is priceless.

    http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/.....ghtedness/

  257. 257
    one two seven says:

    Lyle:
    The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

    This.

    This was a much more conservative opinion than the simplistic analysis you’ll hear all week is going to give it credit for.

  258. 258
    hueyplong says:

    FoxNews: Socialist Kenyan Muslim Usurper to ram broccoli down our throats. Wolverines!

  259. 259
    PeakVT says:

    The ruling contains 6 pages of summary, 59 pages from Roberts, 61 pages from Ginsburg, 65 pages from the loons, and 2 pages from Thomas in which he says, “and another thing!”.

  260. 260
    JCT says:

    For goodness’ sake — driving in this AM, stuck at a long light and took a look at CNN right after 10AM. Horrified. Long ride in.

    Get to work, dejectedly check TPM — WTF?

    Thanks CNN, you imbeciles.

    Meanwhile, I wonder what horse-trading went on with that decision, that dissent from Kennedy is completely nuts. Strike it all down? What?

  261. 261
    gbear says:

    If Bohner thinks that the Holder vote is going to trump this ACA news, he’s a fool. Today’s Holder vote is going to look incredibly petty and stupid to everyone except rabid gun freaks. No way that this isn’t Obama’s day today.

  262. 262
    burnspbesq says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Just go away, you fuckheaded Fuckhead. Get it through that rotten melon of yours: the American people had a fucking GREAT week at the supreme court.

  263. 263
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    Well, I’m relieved. Rule of law and judicial restraint aren’t quite dead in this country. I’m not gonna say Roberts is taking a turn to the left-I mean, really?-but he’s at least not a complete nutjob.

    I am a bit worried about the particulars of the ruling that have been discussed. I guess the safest route would be not to bring any more major legislation before the court until Fat Tony croaks.

  264. 264
    Creepy Jury Trials Permanently Penned Mr. Devon for Silvering Ordinary Camshafts says:

    This is why elections matter, and especially this year’s election

  265. 265
    PaulW says:

    Don’t go thinking Roberts is a dye-hard (heh) librul now.

    He’s just a more honest conservative about federalism than the others on the Court.

  266. 266
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @RossInDetroit: Here here!!

  267. 267
    Spectre says:

    Co-sign with those saying this isn’t a turning point for Roberts. At the end of the day, he was supporting corporate interests, and backing a bill created by the heritage foundation.

    That said, still a good day!

  268. 268
    suzanne says:

    Oh. My. GOD.

    I’m beyond thrilled.

  269. 269
    chopper says:

    love it. roberts’s opinion for the majority is like 60 pages, ginsburg’s opinion is like 60 pages, the dissent is like 60 pages and thomas’s dissent is 2 pages. LOL.

  270. 270
    JGabriel says:

    Roberts sided with Obama while Kennedy stayed on the right?

    My mind is boggled. Did not see that configuration coming — although it kind of makes sense now that I think about it. Roberts is always and foremost pro-business, and the insurance companies wanted the PPACA to survive too, especially since the alternative would be the expansion of Medicare to all.

    .

  271. 271
    Scratch says:

    If nothing else, this decision also reinforces how important it is that Obama is re-elected in November. There’s no way the American left can afford the chance of Romney choosing a replacement for Ginsburg.

    The other big hope would be that if Obama is re-elected, he gets to make the nomination for Scalia’s replacement.

  272. 272
    Birthmarker says:

    Chuck Todd just said something stupid. I think I will now reinstitute my near total ban on cable news.

  273. 273
    Death Panel Truck says:

    From the SCOTUSblog:

    Amy Howe: By the way, the opinions collectively are a monster. The Chief’s opinion is 59 pages, Justice Ginsburg’s opinion is 61 pages, the four dissenters are 65 pages, followed by a short two-pager from Justice Thomas. You do the math.

    Two pages from Thomas. What a shocker. I guess it’s tough to tear yourself away from Internet porn long enough to, you know, actually work.

  274. 274
    General Stuck says:

    @one two seven:

    By leaving the regs in place, the Roberts using the tax clause is pretty hollow. The mandate was not the only element that was presumably justified by the CC. By leaving all the national regs in place they can only be justified by applying the CC to them. So the claim of unconstitutional being the mandate, or funding of a law, is confined to only that part of any future national social net law. And each new law with funding can now be justified as a tax for using to fund such laws. Which seems much more conducive and solid for making new deal like laws into the future. I don’t think a minority vote on the SCOTUS can be perceived as having any precedence, but not being a lawyer, could be wrong about that.

    IOW;s Roberts has actually expanded taxing powers by congress. seems to this dweeb

  275. 275
    rlrr says:

    @mothra:

    Good news for McCain….

  276. 276
    JGabriel says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Corporations are people and Roberts is their representative on the court. He determined that striking down the mandate would adversely affect the corporate beneficiaries of said mandate. When corporations hurt, Roberts haz a sad.

    Bingo! The big surprise, to me, is not Robert’s approval of PPACA but Kennedy’s dissent.

    .

  277. 277
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Ol’ Rupert Murderdoch on taxes: ‘taxes will go up, I will have less money, the economy will suffer.’ He really thinks everything revolves around him…lol! Neil Cavuto just wrapped up by licking Ol’ Rupert’s wrinkled sphincter and giving him a prostrate massage with his tongue.

    Neil is angling for a two hour show.

  278. 278
    lacp says:

    John Roberts: Islamokenyan or Homomarxist? We report, you decide.

  279. 279
    chopper says:

    @Xecky Gilchrist:

    OTOH, obama just helped get 50 some-odd million working class americans access to affordable health care in the years ahead. that’s gotta resonate.

  280. 280
    Violet says:

    @chopper:

    roberts’s opinion for the majority is like 60 pages, ginsburg’s opinion is like 60 pages, the dissent is like 60 pages and thomas’s dissent is 2 pages. LOL.

    Gah, he’s such a empty suit.

  281. 281
    Cacti says:

    I think we can safely say now that the only way Kennedy and Scalia will leave SCOTUS with a Dem in office, is inside a pine box.

  282. 282
    Culture of Truth says:

    Roberts is a smart guy. Boehner is a moron.

  283. 283
    Birthmarker says:

    @Spectre: Pretty concise analysis. But as I said in the thread earlier this AM, the bill does limit profits, and rebates start in August for some consumers.

    The other rarely stated point–we as taxpayers have been paying the medical costs of the uninsured.

  284. 284
    JoJo says:

    There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth on Free Republic today. Sweet!

  285. 285
    The Moar You Know says:

    Why does John Boner even waste his breath with “WE HAF TO REPEEL THE WHOAL TH1NG IMMEDIATLNOWASAP!” Whats the fucking point of this, other than looking like an asshole?

    @Punchy: He has a constituency, just like any other politician. This is what his constituency demanded. He’ll give it to them. It costs nothing but a few hours of time and will not pass, so what’s the harm?

    Boehner isn’t a newb at this game, he understands that his side is full of lunatics who are going to throw a tantrum regardless, so might as well pick a time and place to have it. Makes it easier to clean up afterward.

  286. 286
    rlrr says:

    @chopper:

    OTOH, obama just helped get 50 some-odd million working class americans access to affordable health care in the years ahead. that’s gotta resonate.

    That makes the GOP have a sad…

  287. 287

    I coulda made a killing on intrade!

  288. 288
    Violet says:

    @lacp:

    John Roberts: Islamokenyan or Homomarxist? We report, you decide.

    I’m pretty sure I heard that John Roberts was educated in a madrassa.

  289. 289
    joes527 says:

    Legal question:

    In the end, does any of the sound and fury coming out of the Justices’ pens mean anything beyond the binary : upheld?

    The whole upheld as tax but not under the commerce clause thing… Does that have any practical impact? Does it create a new precedent? Or does it just fail to create a precedent where it would have been handy to have one, and provide quotable quotes to a future court that might want to create a precedent in this area.

  290. 290
    El Cid says:

    I for one feel justified in steadfastly refusing to attempt to predict the ruling.

    However, nothing would have surprised me.

  291. 291
    bemused says:

    @Birthmarker:

    This made me burst out laughing. I must be slap happy. This will be a day of overwhelming mirth reading and watching all the incredibly stupid.

  292. 292
    Birthmarker says:

    @lacp: I lolled!!

  293. 293
    eric says:

    @burnspbesq: with this genious comment
    “The Federal Government exercises too much power. It is time that the States act in concert to curb the power of the same.”

    hmmmm. could that ever happen? Has it ever happened? let me think

  294. 294
    handsmile says:

    This decision outta make particularly entertaining the House contempt vote on Eric Holder scheduled for later today. Fat Tony’s ranting aria on Monday will seem but a lullabye when compared to what the wingnuts will spew when taking the floor to denounce the Kenyan Usurper’s Justice Department.

  295. 295
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @JGabriel:

    Bingo! The big surprise, to me, is not Robert’s approval of PPACA but Kennedy’s dissent.

    Yes, same here. I described him as “Principled Windsock Kennedy” on my Facebook page.

  296. 296
    jwb says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: it does explain why Scalia was so pissy Monday. Spent all that time leaving dead horses in Kennedy’s bed only to discover that he didn’t have Roberts in the bag. Still Kennedy’s vote here makes me wonder about future rulings on abortion, since Kennedy clearly signals that he’s thrown his lot with the wingnuts.

  297. 297
    chopper says:

    @one two seven:

    not quite. yeah, they limited the commerce clause all right, but if you read the opinion it really does so on the whole ‘you can’t use the commerce clause to regulate a lack of commercial activity’.

    this law is pretty much on it’s own in that regard, and i don’t see too many social welfare laws coming down the pike that try to regulate commerce in that fashion.

    tho the right did get to say they put up a firebreak.

  298. 298
    Hill Dweller says:

    The cable news hacks are completely deflated. They look like a kid who was expecting a new bike on Christmas morning, only to find socks.

  299. 299
    Martin says:

    Not sure this is any kind of salvation for Roberts. He still voted in the best interests of corporations, which also happens to be the best interests of individuals given the options that are politically possible right now.

    Truly, the only losers here are conservatives.

  300. 300
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Nutpicked a real LOL at Redstate:

    Isn’t there a International Court or UN that we could go to and appeal this?

    Now that’s just fucking hilarious! They hate the International Courts and the U.N., yet Redstate member PatriotForLiberty asks if they can be saved by those same entities.

    Next up, Republicans ask for international elections monitors at conservative polling sites this fall!

  301. 301
    Ash Can says:

    @Death Panel Truck: I’m surprised he wrote anything at all (unless the justices are required to write something).

  302. 302
    burnspbesq says:

    SpaceJesus at LGF wins the day with:

    doing cartwheels through puddles of Wingnut tears

  303. 303
    Brian R. says:

    It looks like the Republicans are going to press ahead with full-on repeal now. Are they really that stupid?

  304. 304
    Valdivia says:

    @Birthmarker:

    and of course those who didn’t know the rebates were coming are going to accuse Obama of trying to buy the election with money to people.

  305. 305
    Birthmarker says:

    @Scratch: So true. Good time for one of the FPers to bump the donation thread.

  306. 306
    scav says:

    One difference is that Roberts will have highly trained logic slicers going after his body of work for as long as ‘mercan law is studied and they will be able to speak with an equal authority to his in many ways. Boehner isn’t — Boehner doesn’t much have to think past what he thinks will dominate the next news cycle on friendly channels reaching the choir as politics stands now.

  307. 307
    JCT says:

    To echo the comment upthread — we have to double-down on re-electing Obama and giving him a sane legislative partner. If this VERY moderate law narrowly missed going down, one can only imagine the havoc re: SCOYUS that would be created by President Romney and a batshit crazy Congress.

  308. 308
    mdblanche says:

    @butler: A switch in time to save nine?

    So, can we stop listening to the doomsayers now? Can people around here who really ought to know better stop paying attention to Village idiots whose track record is now something like 0 for ∞? You could cut the sense of despair around here (and many other places) with a knife for the past week or two while others spent hours furiously navel-gazing trying to predict the verdict using surplus Kremlinology tools. The only people who predicted this outcome are now being sheepishly released from their psych evals. So what did any of this accomplish? Are there really so many of us out there with nothing better to do than sit around feeling sorry for themselves, engaging in wild mass guessing, or worst of all reading the Washington Post editorial page? Are there really any of us out there who actually enjoyed doing that?

  309. 309
    artem1s says:

    so any predictions on how long it takes (R)Money to shake the etch-a-sketch and claim this decision as his victory?

    3, 2, 1….

  310. 310
    Mike in NC says:

    Mitt Romney’s response will be an attack ad that says “I was for RomneyCare before I was against ObamaCare” or something equally preposterous.

  311. 311
    ericblair says:

    @JGabriel:

    Roberts is always and foremost pro-business, and the insurance companies wanted the PPACA to survive too, especially since the alternative would be the expansion of Medicare to all.

    No: the likely alternative is continued decay of the current “system” such as it is. Every time social legislation is defeated it dies for a generation and comes back weaker. It doesn’t make the Promised Land rise from the ashes. Success begets success.

  312. 312
    PeakVT says:

    @joes527: I think with the length of the ruling it will be at least a few days before a consensus forms on the long-term implications.

  313. 313
    Mnemosyne says:

    I said from the beginning that Roberts was going to have to choose between Republican ideology and his devotion to corporations and that I didn’t think he was enough of an ideologue to vote with the other conservatives on something that would hurt corporations. And I don’t just mean healthcare corporations — I think part of Roberts’ calculation was that healthcare expenses are hurting all corporations and those expenses need to be brought under control for profits to flourish.

    I did think that Kennedy would go along with whatever Roberts’ position was, so I was wrong there. Still, a happy day overall, even if Roberts joined the left for (IMO) the wrong reasons.

  314. 314
    mdblanche says:

    @butler: A switch in time to save nine?

    So, can we stop listening to the doomsayers now? Can people around here who really ought to know better stop paying attention to Village idiots whose track record is now something like 0 for ∞? You could cut the sense of despair around here (and many other places) with a knife for the past week or two while others spent hours furiously navel-gazing trying to predict the verdict using surplus Kremlinology tools. The only people who predicted this outcome are now being sheepishly released from their psych evals. So what did any of this accomplish? Are there really so many of us out there with nothing better to do than sit around feeling sorry for themselves, engaging in wild mass guessing, or worst of all reading the Washington Post editorial page? Are there really any of us out there who actually enjoyed doing that?

  315. 315
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    @chopper: I quite agree – sorry if I wasn’t clear, I think this is a big win for the Democratic side and for actual humans.

    Just saying that it’s silly to claim this will make congressional Redoublechins oppose Obama EVEN MORE!!! because, short of actual physical violence, how can they?

  316. 316
    Valdivia says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    ha ha ha. That is the funniest thing I have read today.

  317. 317
    The Moar You Know says:

    Isn’t there a International Court or UN that we could go to and appeal this?

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: I majored in psychology oh so long ago. There’s not a textbook in the world that has an example of “cognitive dissonance” that’s as good as that.

  318. 318
    JGabriel says:

    @JGabriel:

    The big surprise, to me, is not Robert’s approval of PPACA but Kennedy’s dissent.

    Let me re-phrase that: I’m not surprised that Kennedy dissented but that he dissented despite Roberts decision.

    .

  319. 319
    PeakVT says:

    OnPoint has a former Scalia clerk on (among others) and he sounds like someone just told him his puppy died. Hee-heeee.

  320. 320
    dr. bloor says:

    @chopper:

    this law is pretty much on it’s own in that regard, and i don’t see too many social welfare laws coming down the pike that try to regulate commerce in that fashion.

    Although Slimy Sam Alito will be relieved that the Islamokenyanfascist won’t be able to force burial cost mandates on Teh Murkin Peeples.

  321. 321
    Birthmarker says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: DougJ trolling?

  322. 322
    lacp says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: Now that is hilarious. These people really are insane – you probably wouldn’t have to go back more than a week to find a comment from the same person slamming all international organizations. Save us from Obamacare, Agenda 21!

  323. 323
    SBJules says:

    Love it, love it, love it. Go John Roberts (who knew?)

  324. 324
    Ksmiami says:

    @jwb: I’m vacationing in southern redder neck md and no Romney signs at all . He is not loved

  325. 325
    slag says:

    @Birthmarker: Agreed. I call spoof.

  326. 326
    burnspbesq says:

    It’ll be at least five years, and maybe ten, before we know whether this case represents a turning point in Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

  327. 327
    cckids says:

    @Mark S.: @Brian R.: Well, yeah. SATSQ. To infinity.

  328. 328
    chopper says:

    @dr. bloor:

    until alito actually looks into social security and realizes that he’s been forcibly paying for burial insurance for years.

  329. 329
    feebog says:

    I’m with Just Some Fuckhead on this one. Roberts saw the damage overturning the mandate would do to the insurance companies and figured a way out. Nothing more than that. Good outcome for the good guys, but don’t be surprised when Roberts continues to disappoint in the future.

  330. 330
    Felanius Kootea says:

    @giltay: CNN truly deserves that :).

  331. 331

    Here are some thumbtack observations on the SCOTUS upholding 99% of the ACA. More will follow as the SCOTUS’ decision is more deeply read and interpreted.

  332. 332
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @JGabriel:

    Roberts sided with Obama while Kennedy stayed on the right?

    Roberts sided with “not wanting ‘Roberts Court’ to be synonymous with ‘letting people die and/or be bankrupted by judicial fiat’.”

  333. 333
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @hueyplong: This.

    Also, I was wrong earlier in the thread; Roberts did not accept the Commerce Clause argument, but was okay with the tax one. I was basing it off the liveblog

  334. 334
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Valdivia:
    @The Moar You Know:

    I just about choked to death reading that over there. The poor fools are so screwed up they are grasping at anything to ‘save’ themselves. Yeah, piss on people and/or organizations and then ask for their help when you think you’re in trouble.

    Sounds exactly like something a winger would do.

  335. 335
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @feebog:

    but don’t be surprised when Roberts continues to disappoint in the future.

    Don’t be a naysayer. Roberts is just a few unkind Redstate comments from turning into Wild Bill Douglas.

  336. 336
    handsmile says:

    Beyond upholding ACA, today’s decision rendered another victory for the American people:
    the expiration of CNN as a credible news organization. One might say it’s but the final nail in the coffin, but this morning’s fiasco indelibly carved “America’s Most Trusted News Source” on its tombstone.

    I’ll tramp the dirt down.

  337. 337
    shortstop says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: The SCOTUS liveblog never said that Roberts supported the CC arguments; just the opposite in all references to him.

  338. 338
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Birthmarker:

    I’m almost thinking that’s the case, that or a reasonable facsimile of DougJ.

    @lacp:

    I’m really loving this decision just for the froth it has whipped up on the right. Most people are going to go ‘ok, the courts say that this is ok so I guess we see how it gets implemented. But not the wingers, nooooo. They want to triple down on repeal but by the time they get there too many people will learn that this is much better than what we had in the past.

    Or as another commenter at Redstate said:

    The majority of folks who are and have been against Obamacare, will now look at the law as being Constitutional. The Democrats will be looked at as doing something unpopular yet bold. The public will then, as a result, decide that they are now allowed to accept it and thus support it. Obama and the 2009-2010 Congress HAS changed America.

    A little reality leaks into Redstate. So far it has been ignored but yet it’s still there. :)

  339. 339
    shortstop says:

    @feebog: It’s a little more complicated than “windfall for the insurance companies.” Remember that the relatively small number of people who will have to pay for private insurance for the first time will be using that insurance, not paying premiums and continuing to go without care, and that denial for preexisting conditions, random rescissions and lifetime caps are where the real money is.

    I agree that this doesn’t signify a shift to the left for Roberts, but neither was this a purely corporatist decision, or he would have gone with those who wanted to overturn the entire act. (I don’t think it was a humanitarian decision on Roberts’ part, either–a self-interested one, to be sure.)

  340. 340
    Brachiator says:

    @Bullsmith:

    Personally, I think the political calculation was that if you actually strike down ACA it would be like actually outlawing abortion at a federal level- it would energize the Dems more than the base. Now Romney and the team can run hard against Obamacare, instead of answering what they’d do instead.

    That’s OK. Romney has been put on the defensive. He can promise to repeal it all he wants. But he would still have to get a repeal (and replacement) through Congress. He would have it far easier if the Court killed it.

    Honestly, I think Roberts was perfectly willing to trash his reputation for a partisan victory, but this one wasn’t worth it. Now our overlords will tell us how mavericky, independant and bipartisan he is for pretty much the rest of his life.

    I think that Roberts decided that he had to make a stand for the integrity of the Court. They read the newspapers too, and pay attention not only to public opinion, but possibly to the warnings of constitutional scholars that a purely political opinion risked turning the Court into an object of ridicule.

    And Roberts had to make the Court his, and not a Scalia rubberstamp.

  341. 341
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @shortstop: I saw that Roberts’ opinion was based on the tax argument and thought that it meant he avoided the CC argument altogether. Like CNN, I jumped the gun. Mea culpa.

  342. 342
    shortstop says:

    I just know that designated GOP spox Cathy McMorris-Rodgers or Rodgers-McMorris or whatever is going to have something prescient to say about all of this. As a token, she sure has a lot of spark and snap. Except for the spark and snap part.

  343. 343
    quannlace says:

    How is Fox going to spin this as a HUGE DEFEAT FOR OBAMA?
    Reply

    I was curious about that too. As the pundit tsunami began, I went over to FOX to see how they were covering it. A very funereal feel, like somebody’s mother died, and Karl Rove concentrating on the one thing the court found invalid about ACA. Then five minutes later, it’s on to pastures new! Talking about the split-up of Murdoch’s media empire. And just waiting for Romney’s news conf.

  344. 344
  345. 345
    tjmn says:

    @Anya: Good thing ACA was validated. Those whose heads are exploding about this will need that health care.

Comments are closed.