In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. But as the political, legal, and policy world scrutinizes the details of today's ruling, it's worth pausing to appreciate just how far the four dissenters -- who filed their dissent jointly -- were willing to go.
The conventional wisdom, which was neither conventional nor wise, was that the individual mandate was in deep trouble, but it was unrealistic to think the justices would be so radical as to kill every letter of every word of every page of the law. Such a breathtaking move would simply be unnecessarily radical.
And yet, as of this morning, four justices -- Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas -- insisted on doing exactly that. The four dissenters demanded that the Supreme Court effectively throw out the entirety of the law -- the mandate, the consumer protections, the tax cuts, the subsidies, the benefits, everything.
To reach this conclusion, these four not only had to reject a century of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, they also had ignore the Necessary and Proper clause, and Congress' taxation power. I can't read Chief Justice John Roberts' mind, but it wouldn't surprise me if the extremism of the four dissenters effectively forced him to break ranks -- had Kennedy been willing to strike down the mandate while leaving the rest of the law intact, this may well have been a 5-4 ruling the other way.
Roberts' motivations notwithstanding, it's important that Americans understand that there are now four justices on the Supreme Court who effectively want to overturn the 20th century. Based on the flimsiest of arguments, the four dissenters want to kill progressive legislation basically because their political ideologies tell them to do so.
There are some who argue that this year's presidential election isn't especially important. I hope those who believe this consider what today's court minority was prepared to do, and what they will do with just one more vote.
Leave a Comment:
I cheered! MEB
I'm thrilled with the decision made by the Supremes. I'm sorry that it was not unanimous. It leaves one wondering if some of the Supremes even care about the people of United States or at lest the poor and middle class. Oh well a paycheck is still a paycheck no matter where it comes from. Maybe we should ask these judges where their money is coming from???????
I believe that the conservatives actually wanted this to pass. After all, the individual mandate was their idea and the insurance industry stands to make a fortune from the individual mandate. I also believe that Kennedy and Roberts swapped votes so the law gets passed but Roberts gets a fig leaf to cover his otherwise outrageously conservative voting record.
Salon.com is speculating that the Chief Justice switched his vote at the last minute, and that the minority opinion started out as the majority opinion:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote/
I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced, but they make some interesting observations in terms of the language of the dissent.
"As an insurance company stock holder I can only thank the Supreme Court for saving our asses. Thanks Guys!~ Unending Profits until the populace wakes up and opts for Single Payer Health Care— which day I'm moving to Kazakhstan were we can do business the old fashioned way: With Pay Offs and Bribes!"
LOL!!
Wow, I love America! Though something needs to be done before we die from too many 5to4 wounds!
This Court's deference to the legislative branch was no doubt precipitated by Roberts' reluctance to embrace two words that would surely be pinned to him in future annals of our current America. Those two words?
Roger Taney!
Now is the time to do the little things, so big things can continue to happen! Take on your loved ones, your neighbors, your friends and casual acquaintances, or that annoying distant relative who keeps sending offensive material about our current POTUS! You know, those images of Einstein theorizing how we'll "fork" ourselves if we vote to reelect the president?
Well, anyway, get out and engage these people's proclivity to believe the tripe being fed to them by Kochland extremists, and force them to think beyond the convenient "he not one of us" meme they're continuously being bombarded by! My brother, and his friends are tough customers. They've allowed the emotional messaging to creep into their perspectives, and are just the voters the Koch Bros. Jihadists are looking for! It has been difficult, but some are just now realizing just how a vote for Romney and the Republican down-ballot candidates is a vote against their own interests!
People to people messaging, while helping all we can to get through the voting impediments erected by the Republicans, is the way to prevail in this election cycle! Make it so! Just do it! Throw it down! Go for it! Ready set go! Get it done!
For Our Children! -Kevo
I am trying to understand something. If Roberts had sided with Scalia et al., he would have assigned himself to write the majority opinion, right? (Just like he did when he sided with the left-leaning justices.) Then he could have overturned the ACA without going so far as the other four right-wingers wanted, right?
If that is right, then he didn't need to uphold the ACA in order to keep the extremists from creating precedent. Right?
Am I misunderstanding the argument of this article?
Thanks in advance for any explanations you might have. I really am trying to figure out what JR was doing when he made this ruling.
I have hopes that the American People will NOT let this last chance for a Real America to return, go to waste. Silly people who thought "OK, we've got it all and I really have to go shopping on Election Day"....and even worse "I'm going to vote for sure! Uh...no, I don't know if I'm registered in my precinct, I should be, I moved there 6 months ago" (real actual things that people have said to me) is mostly what's lost it all from 1980 to 2008 (with the exception of the four stellar years of the Clinton Administration from 1992 to 2000).
Complacency will ALWAYS guarantee a return of Republicans.
While I'm no fan of Mitt Romney, I have to give him credit for laying the blueprint for health care reform. In Massachusetts, 98 % of the State's popuation has health care-the highest in the nation, thanks to so-called Romney care. Unfortunatly, so he does not upset the partyline or Fox news, he seems willing to kill his own brain-child.
If the opinions of Scalia, Thomas and allies consistently prevailed, what would the nation look like? Would it resemble Singapore? A pre-Mandela South Africa? I'm wondering if anyone has ever constructed a veritable nation relying on a Scalia/Thomas model.
The following is a repost.
It is trite "law" that a court will always adopt validity over invalidity if a basis for the former is available. That is its true and proper function. Given the WH's "alternative basis of validity" argument, CJ Roberts was doing nothing more than what was expected of his position.
The real question for me concerns the dissenting Justices.
Why were they conducting themselves as political activitists rather than jurists? Why did they flagrantly violate their judicial oaths?
In addition to the "validity trumps invalidity" principle, CJ Roberts has a compelling reason to side with the Liberal side of the court. Given the (1) known relationship between Scalia/Thomas and the opponents of the challenged Act plus (2) Scalia's egregious judicial remarks, the CJ has no alternative but to defend the integrity of the Supreme Court and with that, his own integrity, or what is left of it.
Some may romanticize the CJ's actions. In truth, his motive is far less romantic.
Seems to me a great deal of the devisivness in this country derives from the conservative fixation with the "slippery slope" arguments. For example, my governement's insistence that Cuba be denied nuclear weapons is NOT part of a plot to take away my son's BB gun, and trash the second amendment. Nor is the economic good sense of manditory insurance part of a larger ploy by socialists to destroy capitalism. Analogies nearly this extreme seem to be the driving forces of fanatiscism, which sadly undermine civil discourse, and cause the radical right to justify any means in pursuit of what they see as patriotic ends! It is so sad because it is with heartfelt good intentions that these overbaked nuts react, convinced that they are the last patriots standing
Unfortunately For Us We Are Walking A Very Narrow Tight Rope. One Supreme Court Addition On The Right And Low And Behold We Have Loss A Hundred Years Of Progress. Thats Is Why This Election Is So Important. Each One Has A Responsibility To Inform One. We Will Win This Election From The Grass Roots Or Not At All Because We Will Be Out Spent...
We Are Walking A Very Narrow Tight Rope As Far A The Supreme Court Is Concerned. One More Conservative Judge Could Set Us Back One Hundred Years. That Is The Major Reason Why This Election Is So Important. The Next One As Well, Most Of The Conservatives On The Court Presently Will Probably Still Be Around In Four Years. As Bad As I Hate To Say It We Progressives Have To Become Just As Down And Dirty As Our Counterparts. That's The Only Way We Will Be Successful
In reading through these comments I am amazed that there are bright, articulate people who believe that the Court reached the right decision. Had the justices not acted politically the entire law would have been overturned and sent back to Congress to do it correctly or (ideally) not at all.
Perhaps some of you have not read the dissent, so let me just give you a few quotes:
and
and, my personal favorite and one that really sums up much of the disaster that has taken place in Washington in recent years:
What nobody is talking about, is that fact that four Supreme Court justices just voted that there are no limits to Washington's power to mandate or prohibit anything. They discussed this topic extensively and no limitations were mentioned in their dissent to the constitutionality of the mandate. Five justices just voted that Washington has the power to tax absolutely anything! This insane, totalitarian interpretation - liberalism and/or progressivism and not even in the picture - of the constitution would make Nazi Germany totally 'constitutional.' Please refute this assessment of the verdict. I would love a solid refutation.