With a resounding dull thud, health care is not struck down

[tomBitonti]

In case you missed it (which seems hard, but anyways), in what seems quite anticlimactic, US health care was not struck down by the Supreme Court:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...ourt-opinion-on-the-affordable-care-act/1603/

The converse would have been a very big deal. And the affirmation is still very big, but seems to be ... anticlimactic. Lots of energy spent, with the result being "nothing here, move along".

I imagine this will have a big effect on the upcoming US elections, and somewhat differently than a repudiation would have had. US elections are at the start of a presidential election cycle.

Reading the decision, very quickly, and only about the first ten (10) pages or so, the court seems to go to unusual length explaining the reasons for the law, which seems odd to me.

The actual reasoning for the decision seems a lot less convoluted than some, and I don't find it very exciting.

My own view is that the ability of the congress to adjust the law in either direction, either to more clearly allow federal exchanges, or to require state exchanges, is important, and limited the court's willingness to adjust the law. But that's a personal view.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not the biggest surprise in the world.

 

[Kramodlog]

Not the biggest surprise in the world.

With the current court it is a bit. Who knows how partisan some of them are willing to go in their rulings.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Scalia and Thomas, yeah, but at this point, I'm just embarrassed for them. The case before them was not exactly full of language needful of serious legal parsing, as Kagan repeatedly pointed out.

 

[Alzrius]

It may not have been a surprise, but it certainly was a relief (even if I do live in a state that has its own exchange, and already have insurance through my job).

 

[tomBitonti]

It may not have been a surprise, but it certainly was a relief (even if I do live in a state that has its own exchange, and already have insurance through my job).

I'm not affected either way, not directly, but I know lots of folks who might have been, and to whom health insurance is generally a big deal, so I can appreciate that the ruling is a relief to lots of folks (but upsetting to others). I get heath care through my employer, and have been, fortunately, mostly healthy. I can see that in the future this may matter a lot more to me than it does today.

I'm wondering if the Supreme Court really wanted to take up the case, or if the court was forced to get involved because of mixed rulings from the appeals courts. I also gather that the ruling is all about interpreting a statute, which seems to be a different kind of case than one which asks constitutional questions. The text of the ruling provides what seems to be a clear guideline, almost a primer, for interpreting statutory language.

If the details of interpreting the statute correctly are straightforward, could the ruling be taken as a chastisement of a lower court?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There was a chastisement, all right, but it was of the dissent: Roberts, the CJ, wrote for the majority, and in upholding the law, cited a dissent his fellow conservatives wrote in the 2012 case that upheld Obamacare's mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty:

"(SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) (slip op., at 60) (“Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”

The rationale cited in the dissent was precisely the rationale in the majority opinion of this one.

IOW, he nailed them for being politicized ideologues instead of jurists who would apply the logic they found in a prior case to a current one, regardless of whether the result fit their personal worldview.

And he didn't have to do that. He could have spelled out his rationale without the explicit citation. Instead, he called them hypocrites on the record. THAT is a judicial bitchslap.

One they earned, IMHO.

 

[billd91]

There was a chastisement, all right, but it was of the dissent: Roberts, the CJ, wrote for the majority, and in upholding the law, cited a dissent his fellow conservatives wrote in the 2012 case that upheld Obamacare's mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty:



The rationale cited in the dissent was precisely the rationale in the majority opinion of this one.

IOW, he nailed them for being politicized ideologues instead of jurists who would apply the logic they found in a prior case to a current one, regardless of whether the result fit their personal worldview.

And he didn't have to do that. He could have spelled out his rationale without the explicit citation. Instead, he called them hypocrites on the record. THAT is a judicial bitchslap.

One they earned, IMHO.

It was a brilliant takedown. Now I need a cigarette.

 

[Umbran]

And he didn't have to do that. He could have spelled out his rationale without the explicit citation. Instead, he called them hypocrites on the record. THAT is a judicial bitchslap.

"Judicial Bitchslap" needs to be the name of a string quartet that does covers of punk tunes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It DOES have a nice ring to it...