Courts & Law

President Obama’s statement on ACA opinion

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Transcript of Remarks by the President on Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act | The White House (video below the fold):

Remarks by the President on Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

East Room

12:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago.  In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin. 

I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost.  That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington.  But that discussion completely misses the point.  Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.

And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you. 

First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.  Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.  They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.  They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.  They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.  They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.  And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care. 

There’s more.  Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans — a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.  And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs — a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

SCOTUS Watch: Victory! The Affordable Care Act upheld by SCOTUS

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I first want to begin by noting that I had a bank of television sets on this morning tuned into the various networks. At 7:08 a.m. (AZ Time), the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision on the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"). FAUX News Fraudcasting and TeaNN (formerly CNN) immediately announced that the Court had ruled "Obamacare" unconstitutional, reading from their prepared GOPropaganda talking points.

GavelThe exact opposite was true. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS upheld the Affordable Care Act in its entirety under Congress' taxing authority. We need to begin a serious discussion in this country about illegitimate news organizations that engage in unlawful propaganda on behalf of the GOP and the conservative movement. Facts are facts, propaganda to create an "alternate reality" of lies is unconscionable and should be impermissible.

Today's decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act is a striking victory and a vindication of President Obama and congresional Democrats. the "unconstitutional" argument from the right has been rejected by SCOTUS.

Here is a quick recap of the opinions announced today. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog summarizes the cases, followed by a link to today's opinions. The remaining merits cases as of June 23: In Plain English:

The health care cases:

Argued March 26-28, 2012

Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty; and (2) whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits taxpayers from filing a lawsuit to challenge a tax until the tax goes into effect and they are required to pay it, prohibits a challenge to the Act’s provision requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty until after the provision goes into effect in 2014.

Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.

Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.

In a 5-4 Decision, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court's liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act in its entirety under Congress' power to tax, including the much maligned by the right "individual mandate." From the beginning of the Robert's majority opinion: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

For all of those who second-guessed the Solicitor General's defense of ACA under Congress' taxing authority, the tax defense of the mandate was the decisive argument. "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." A majority of the Court accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Justice Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition — not owning health insurance — that triggers a tax — the required payment to IRS."

Washington Post: Justice Scalia discredits the Supreme Court, must resign

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Scaliagesture03302006The Neoconservative Washington Post, the voice of establishment Republican opinion, has decided that it is time for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to go.

In an editorial opinion today, the editors deliver the closing argument, Scalia’s discredit to the court (excerpt):

For many Americans, the Supreme Court’s decision on President Obama’s health-care reform poses a keen test of legitimacy. In an atmosphere of intense partisanship, made more acute by a pending national election, can these five Republican-appointed justices and four Democratic-appointed ones pass judgment in a way that impresses most Americans as an act of law rather than politics? We have maintained that they can, or at least that the justices should enjoy a presumption of good faith. But the recent behavior of one member of the court, Justice Antonin Scalia, makes that presumption harder to sustain.

In dissenting from a court ruling that struck down all but one part of Arizona’s law on illegal immigrants, Justice Scalia strayed far from the case at hand to deliver animadversions on President Obama’s recent executive order barring deportation of people who entered the country illegally as children. Based on nothing more than news reports, Justice Scalia opined that this policy would divert federal resources from immigration enforcement, thus creating “the specter” of a “Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.”

This gratuitous outburst, regarding a matter that might someday come before the court as a legal case, followed Justice Scalia’s performance during oral arguments on health care, which included a wisecrack about striking down the “Cornhusker Kickback” — even though that infamous dollop of Medicaid money for Nebraska, allegedly inserted in return for the vote of that state’s senator, was no longer in the statute. He sneered that asking the justices to read the entire 2,700-page Affordable Care Act would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He launched into a muddled riff on an old Jack Benny comedy routine that became so protracted and distracting that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., amused at first, eventually had to declare “that’s enough frivolity for a while.”

A tutorial for the media villagers on SCOTUS opinion re: SB 1070

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” ― Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY)

In the case of news reporters, they are not entitled to express their opinion either. They are supposed to report the facts.

And yet the corporate media villagers continue to misreport and misrepresent the Supreme Court holding in Arizona et al. v. United States, the Court's ruling on federal preemption of SB 1070.

The only way this is possible after two days is if the media villagers have not taken the time to actually read the opinion in Arizona, et al. v. United States (.pdf), in which case, how can they be said to be reporting on the decision? Or they are simply parroting the GOPropaganda talking points, in which case they are not part of a legitimate news organization. I suppose a third possibility is that they are just effin' ignorant, in which case, why are they even employed by a news organization?

Lawrence O'Donnell has provided the most succinct summary of the Court's ruling on SB 1070 that I have seen to date. So pay attention media villagers, and get it right. Start reporting the facts of this case accurately. Video below the fold.