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.
The 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."
Footnote 11 at page 44 of the slip opinion: Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax.
Justice Roberts joined the dissenters to hold that the mandate is not justified under the Commerce Clause (but recognized that it does not matter because there were five votes under the Tax Power): "The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated." I'm not sure exactly what that is supposed to mean in context, but it is unlikey to impact many statutes.
Justice Ginsburg in her concurrence makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts does not. Her opinion on the Commerce Clause is not controlling. Justice Ginsburg also would uphold Medicaid just as Congress wrote it.
On the Medicaid expansion element of this case, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions. Justice Ginsburg's bench statement says that "seven members of the Court… buy the argument that prospective withholding of anticipated funds exceeds Congress' spending power." The remedy, Ginsburg says, is "to bar the withholding found impermissible, not to scrap the expansion altogether." There were five votes for this position.
The key comment on the expanded Medicaid provision is this (from Justice Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55).
In other matters, the Court holds that the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply because the label "tax" is not controlling. The Court does not reach severability issues, having upheld the mandate 5-4.
Here is the opinion in the health care cases: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. (The opinions collectively are a long read. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion is 59 pages, Justice Ginsburg's concurrence opinion is 61 pages, the four dissenters are 65 pages, followed by a short two-pager from Justice Thomas).
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has his analysis of the opinion here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/dont-call-it-a-mandate-its-a-tax/.
First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards
Argued on November 28, 2011
Plain English Issue: Whether lawsuits under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which allows homebuyers to sue banks and title companies when they pay kickbacks for the closing of a mortgage loan, are constitutional if the kickback does not affect the price or quality of the services provided?
In a surprise move, the Court dismissed this case. The opinion in First American Financial v. Edwards is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-7081b2d.pdf.
Argued on February 22, 2012
Plain English Issue: Whether a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military medals or honors violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech.
Plurality opinion to affirm the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the "Stolen Valor Act" case. The Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional, but Congress may be able to rewrite a new law. Justice Kennedy's opinion for the plurality holds the statute violates the First Amendment. Justices Breyer and Kagan concur and conclude that the Act as presently drafted fails First Amendment scrutiny. Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.
The decision in United States v. Alvarez is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.