|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 28, 2012 10:33:42 GMT -5
Quick thoughts as I am reading through the opinion:
1. I actually like the civics lesson tone of the first section. A lot of people, most of them non-lawyers, are going to read this thing.
2. This isn't a total loser opinion for Federalist Society types. It's not often the Court issues an opinion which limits, rather than expands, the Commerce Clause. Court could have done so here (which is what I predicted), and chose not to.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 28, 2012 10:34:47 GMT -5
I'm not going to spend time finding it but I predicted on this board just what happened: that it would be upheld because it's just another tax. Now, as for Chief Justice Roberts: I can't think of any words to describe my disdain for you. Ed, can you give any specific reason for your disdain, other than he found the Act constitutional? I've only read a few pages of his opinion, but even if you don't agree with the holding, I think most people would agree the analysis is, at the least, reasonable. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jun 28, 2012 10:34:52 GMT -5
Now, as for Chief Justice Roberts: I can't think of any words to describe my disdain for you. Oh great, here we go. What is about to happen to Chief Justice Roberts on the Internet, talk radio, and cable news is going to be very ugly. My guess is that it will also make the court more likely to continue current policies of keeping the public out of its chambers. Was there any decision that would have resulted in a reaction that wasn't ugly? Liberal commenters have been warming up their attacks since oral arguments ended |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 28, 2012 10:36:27 GMT -5
2. This isn't a total loser opinion for Federalist Society types. It's not often the Court issues an opinion which limits, rather than expands, the Commerce Clause. Court could have done so here (which is what I predicted), and chose not to. This is what's going to get lost in the shuffle of delcaring who "won" and who "lost." But as a legal takeaway, I think this is huge. |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 28, 2012 10:37:10 GMT -5
I'm not saying there's no distinction between state and federal, I'm saying that I haven't seen any strong legal arguments for why it makes a difference. Not being able to move countries is a good logical/moral argument (it's how I feel about many federal laws that I disagree with) but it's not a strong legal argument. That's more what I'm talking about.
Though I think when the dust settles, the fact that this wasn't upheld under the commerce clause is actually something of a conservative victory. It also means Kennedy didn't think this was a commerce clause argument and without the tax analysis, would have been rejected.
So it's a win for ACA supporters, but not necessarily a long term victory for liberals.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 28, 2012 10:39:49 GMT -5
Oh great, here we go. What is about to happen to Chief Justice Roberts on the Internet, talk radio, and cable news is going to be very ugly. My guess is that it will also make the court more likely to continue current policies of keeping the public out of its chambers. Was there any decision that would have resulted in a reaction that wasn't ugly? Liberal commenters have been warming up their attacks since oral arguments ended True, though I doubt those attacks were of the "nouveau Souter/thought-you-were-on-our-team" variety. Attacking the court in general is expected. Attacking individual justices for their part in the result is different. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 28, 2012 15:16:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jun 28, 2012 15:59:43 GMT -5
I have to say that I don't understand this conservative silver-lining spin at all. Only if you believe that future Congresses were going to force people into engaging into commerce using the Commerce Clause would the dicta of the five conservative justices' opinions be meaningful. Clearly, the ACA is sui generis in this respect. I can think of no other such proposals. Further, the Court's opinion affirms that by structuring such compulsion as a tax, Congress could do so anyway.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 28, 2012 16:14:48 GMT -5
I have to say that I don't understand this conservative silver-lining spin at all. Only if you believe that future Congresses were going to force people into engaging into commerce using the Commerce Clause would the dicta of the five conservative justices' opinions be meaningful. Clearly, the ACA is sui generis in this respect. I can think of no other such proposals. Further, the Court's opinion affirms that by structuring such compulsion as a tax, Congress could do so anyway. I'm not sure how it's spin. The Court clearly (not through dicta) slapped down the attempt to use the commerce clause to justify the mandate, and to create commerce in order to regulate it. There are lots of legit reasons for conservatives to be happy about this opinion. And it seems to me that the case law on the power to tax is less developed than the case law on the commerce clause, leaving the opporunity for future Courts to define the power to tax as narrowly or broadly as they deem appropriate. Other than Morrison and Lopez, this the only major pushback on the expansion of the commerce clause I can think of. At this point in time, I don't think the Courts are going to be able to effect a significant reduction in the scope of the commercer clause. While this case may open the door to using the taxing and spending clause as means to effect an agenda -- as you allude to -- the Courts will also have more freedom to shape (and limit) the scope of that power. |
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jun 28, 2012 16:41:48 GMT -5
Is it not obiter dictum when the observation by the Court has no controlling effect? I know the Court said this clearly, but it did not form a basis for the actual ruling. That section could have been cut and the opinion would have the exact same effect. (This is an academic discussion anyway; as one of my law professors used to say, this is "awfully high dicta.")
Morrison and Lopez both deal with the distinction between commerce and not commerce. The ACA case involves compulsion to engage in commerce. Everyone agrees that the mandate involves interstate commerce, unlike Morrison and Lopez. The issue before the Court was whether such participation could be compelled. So to my reading, the ACA decision is really something of a different animal. After Raich, I'm not sure what ordinary federal laws (or any that are planned in the most fevered of left-wing minds) would bump up against the Commerce Clause, even with this opinion.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 28, 2012 18:21:14 GMT -5
You said dictum.
;D
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 28, 2012 18:52:25 GMT -5
I'm not going to spend time finding it but I predicted on this board just what happened: that it would be upheld because it's just another tax. Now, as for Chief Justice Roberts: I can't think of any words to describe my disdain for you. Ed, can you give any specific reason for your disdain, other than he found the Act constitutional? I've only read a few pages of his opinion, but even if you don't agree with the holding, I think most people would agree the analysis is, at the least, reasonable. Judge Roberts' nomination was predicated on the belief he would adhere to the views of conservative thought in his judgements and the Senate voted him in believing this. Had he voiced any observations during his hearings that led Senators to believe he could expand the definition of taxes in this way he would not have been nominated nor confirmed. He deceived us and so I have great disdain for him. We now have another Souder. His arguments in this case are so convoluted re the Commerce Clause and taxes I conclude he had an answer looking for a rationale. This precedent gives the federal government the go-ahead to impose anything on the populace and tell us if we don't comply we must pay a penalty/tax. There is no limit. It's a sad day for the United States. |
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Jun 28, 2012 19:05:31 GMT -5
Ed, can you give any specific reason for your disdain, other than he found the Act constitutional? I've only read a few pages of his opinion, but even if you don't agree with the holding, I think most people would agree the analysis is, at the least, reasonable. Judge Roberts' nomination was predicated on the belief he would adhere to the views of conservative thought in his judgements and the Senate voted him in believing this. Had he voiced any observations during his hearings that led Senators to believe he could expand the definition of taxes in this way he would not have been nominated nor confirmed. He deceived us and so I have great disdain for him. We now have another Souder. His arguments in this case are so convoluted re the Commerce Clause and taxes I conclude he had an answer looking for a rationale. This precedent gives the federal government the go-ahead to impose anything on the populace and tell us if we don't comply we must pay a penalty/tax. There is no limit. It's a sad day for the United States. This is a stupid argument. I'm very sure Roberts hadn't come up with this decision or viewpoint during his confirmation. If we're just asking the senate to nominate guys they already know how they are going to vote on the supreme court, why even have a supreme court, just ask the senate what the hypothetical answer would be from the court. He didn't deceive anyone he came to a legal conclusion you don't agree with. So did 4 other justices. And on other cases I'm sure Roberts and other justices have come up with decisions you do agree with. You can dislike his voting record but saying he deceived you is over the top. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 28, 2012 20:21:45 GMT -5
As I digest this ruling, I am happy that preexisting conditions will no longer preclude coverage. I am impressed with the restraint shown by those clearly unhappy with the ruling (no rioting). I am also fairly sure that Presidemt Obama just raised taxes on thos making less than $250,000
|
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Jun 28, 2012 20:59:28 GMT -5
As a Physician and a Law Student, I find this ruling understandable both practically and legally. The decision does not expand the commerce clause to mandating purchase of a commodity but also leaves Wickerd as extant law. It also does not force put the court in the very dangerous position of choosing to throw out part or all of a law passed by a majority in both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President in response to a very significant crisis in healthcare. Had the Court chosen which parts of the law to attach to the mandate and thrown out a portion of the law, it would have created an untenable precedent where the court could pick an choose laws it liked if some portion were not consitutional. Had the court thrown out the entire law they would have plunged the 5-10 most populous states into bankruptcy with the costs already spent for compliance with the law, while having no entitlement to payment for their already completed planning. With this decision, the court now has allowed the political process of law formation to continue, while allowing the president's political party with its control of the administrative state to put its spin on the law. A Romney HHS will certainly apply the law very differently from an Obama HHS. In answer to Elvado's comment, this will create a significant tax on small business owners but the biggest losers are employed persons who make 4 times the poverty limit and do not have employer sponsored health insurance. That group will pay significantly more for health insurance then poorer persons and will no longer have the option of not purchasing insurance. Persons who are part of a family and make less than 4 times the poverty level will receive subsidies and other perks which mean they will pay less and have better coverage than someone who makes more than 4 times the poverty level. In a family of 4 with incomes around 70,000, the insurance will be expensive and with no subsidies will provide crappy coverage. A similar family of 4 making 50,000 will have subsidies that may make it possible for them to do as well as the family that makes 70,000. Perhaps the first tax ever that will decrease the effective income of middle class to that of the upper lower class. The best thing this law does with the preexisting condition preclusion removed and the restoration of community rating will mean whatever insurance coverage you purchase you will be getting a competing coverage rather than having no idea what your insurance will cover before you need it.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 28, 2012 21:28:03 GMT -5
It also does not force put the court in the very dangerous position of choosing to throw out part or all of a law passed by a majority in both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President in response to a very significant crisis in healthcare. Had the Court chosen which parts of the law to attach to the mandate and thrown out a portion of the law, it would have created an untenable precedent where the court could pick an choose laws it liked if some portion were not consitutional. Clearly you have not taken Constitutional Law yet. (I hope you haven't). |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 28, 2012 21:31:13 GMT -5
Ed, can you give any specific reason for your disdain, other than he found the Act constitutional? I've only read a few pages of his opinion, but even if you don't agree with the holding, I think most people would agree the analysis is, at the least, reasonable. Judge Roberts' nomination was predicated on the belief he would adhere to the views of conservative thought in his judgements and the Senate voted him in believing this. Had he voiced any observations during his hearings that led Senators to believe he could expand the definition of taxes in this way he would not have been nominated nor confirmed. He deceived us and so I have great disdain for him. We now have another Souder. His arguments in this case are so convoluted re the Commerce Clause and taxes I conclude he had an answer looking for a rationale. This precedent gives the federal government the go-ahead to impose anything on the populace and tell us if we don't comply we must pay a penalty/tax. There is no limit. It's a sad day for the United States. Man, you are incredible. His arguments regarding the commerce clause are "convulted?" Really? Admit it, you're just Editeded they didn't toss the whole thing. There's nothing rationale behind your disdain. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 29, 2012 0:54:33 GMT -5
bicentennial: Severability doctrine: The Supreme Court has long affirmed a “presumption in favor of severability,” meaning that when it rules that a statutory provision is unconstitutional, the decision should affect as little of the law as possible. As Chief Justice stated, while speaking for the court in 2010, making more extensive changes would constitute “editorial freedom” that “belongs to the legislature, not the judiciary.” IIRC the United States took the position that the individual mandate was NOT severable from the other provisions regulating health insurance which were not being challenged (coverage for preexisting conditions, etc). The US was arguing for the Court to uphold the ACA, all or nothing.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 29, 2012 4:44:09 GMT -5
In the midst of this serious discussion, most of which is written in legalese which I struggle to understand, I get this: Thanks for the laugh! |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 29, 2012 8:23:02 GMT -5
In the midst of this serious discussion, most of which is written in legalese which I struggle to understand, I get this: Thanks for the laugh! I admit I had to look up "obiter dictum." |
|
