Quantcast

SUPREME COURT RULES

Prairie Wind 2012/06/28 14:35:33

-------------------------------------------------------------...
UPDATES:

New Update - 02 July. 2012 - Roberts Switched Views To Uphold Health Care Law! http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/roberts-switched-views-...

New Update - 02 July, 2012 - Ruling Dissent to Chief Justice Roberts' Ruling by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito "We Cannot Rewrite the Statue to Be What It is Not". http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Scalia

Update = Link added (Review or download the Robert's ruling)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/06/28/suprem...


-------------------------------------------------------------...

A divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health-care law, in one of the most anticipated high-court rulings in a generation.

It upheld the mandate as a tax, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts. The justices also found fault with part of the health-care law's expansion of Medicaid, a joint federal-state insurance program for the poor. The justices made some changes to the Medicaid portion of the law.

The court said Congress was acting within its powers under the Constitution when it required most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty—the provision at the center of the two-year legal battle.

The ruling is a victory for Democrats and President Barack Obama, who had passed the biggest reworking to the health system since the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and faced the prospect of the court nullifying their effort. It also averts disruption for hospitals, doctors and employers who have spent more than two years preparing for changes in the law.

The states filed suit the day Mr. Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010, and a cloud of uncertainty had hung over the law ever since. Lower courts issued conflicting rulings on whether the law's insurance mandate was constitutional.

Even as the law's fate was in doubt, the administration moved ahead with implementing its provisions. It has been negotiating with states to set up exchanges where consumers can buy subsidized insurance policies and sign up millions of lower-income Americans for Medicaid. Some states, including Florida and Texas, refused to cooperate because they expected the law to be overturned.

The exchanges are set to open in 2014, the same year insurers will have to accept all customers regardless of their medical histories. The insurance mandate will also take effect that year. People must show when they file tax returns for 2014 that they had coverage during that year or pay a tax penalty. The size of the penalty will rise over time and eventually reach a maximum of several thousand dollars a year.

Also starting in 2014, companies with more than 50 workers will have to pay penalties starting at $2,000 per employee if they didn't offer a set level of health benefits.

The law's challengers argued the federal government didn't have the constitutional power to compel Americans to obtain health insurance. They urged the Supreme Court to strike down the insurance requirement and void the rest of the health law along with it.

Although the law survived the court challenge, it faces an uncertain future. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and GOP congressional leaders have pledged to repeal the law if they take control of Congress and the White House in November elections.

The court's decision, while a relief to Democrats, could further energize voters who dislike the law to back Republicans in November. And it forces the Obama administration to continue defending the unpopular insurance mandate.

On the other hand, the court's blessing could itself shape public opinion of the law, particularly among independents and undecided voters who view the justices as relatively free of the partisan agendas of the government's elected branches. Polls consistently show that the public places greater confidence in the Supreme Court than either Congress or the presidency, although the justices' approval ratings have slipped somewhat over the past year.

The Supreme Court reached its decision in the final week of its 2011-12 term, following an extraordinary three days of oral argument in late March at which conservative justices sharply questioned the mandate. Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that under the government's logic, Congress could require the purchase of any product and "you can make people buy broccoli."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the court's deciding vote, said the government faced a "heavy burden" but also suggested there might be justification for requiring people to carry health coverage so they wouldn't affect health costs for others.

The court's four liberal justices made clear they saw the health law as squarely within congressional authority over interstate commerce, and the nation had been in suspense for three months as the justices in their customary secrecy deliberated and drafted the opinion.

Implementation of the law has been uneven to date. Some changes—such as allowing young people up to age 26 to remain on their parents' plans—have taken effect smoothly and are popular with consumers. Insurers are also already covering preventive services without out-of-pocket costs, a proposal that is generally well-liked but has sparked a fight between the administration and the Catholic church over the inclusion of birth control in the benefits.

The administration has struggled with other early elements of the law, such as high-risk insurance pools designed to cover people with medical conditions until 2014. Thousands of companies have sought temporary waivers to the part of the law that prevents them from capping annual benefit payouts, saying that they would drop coverage otherwise.

The Obama administration and state agencies face considerable challenges to get the rest of the law in place within the next 18 months. Despite support for the consumer-friendly provisions, more Americans oppose the law than favor it, according to recent polls.

Mr. Obama is expected to emphasize the consumer provisions in his re-election effort. Republicans are likely to step up their attacks and stress that after the Supreme Court's decision, the only way to eliminate the unpopular individual mandate is to elect Republicans to the presidency and Congress.

Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023048...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/28 14:49:43
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +16
    Chief Justice Roberts has totally twisted the definitions of taxation and capitation tax, to find some way to justify this. He knows perfectly well that this does violence to the very concept of liberty. So he tried to excuse it on tax grounds.

    We need a debate on how to amend the Constitution to limit the power to tax.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Prairie Wind 2012/07/02 02:25:47
    Prairie Wind
    Did Chief Supreme Court Justice Roberts violate his Oath of Office by not unholding the Constitution through his issuance of this ruling?

    If so, whom and how is a life-time, appointed, Supreme Court Justice to be removed from office his failure to uphold the Oath of appointment?
  • robinswebnest 2012/06/30 08:50:57
    robinswebnest
    +1
    I would like to suggest that someone check Roberts portfolio...from before and after the vote.
  • JCD aka... robinsw... 2012/06/30 21:31:43
    JCD aka "biz"
    +1
    Are you suggesting that Roberts is a corrupt Chief Justice?
  • robinsw... JCD aka... 2012/07/01 22:42:51
    robinswebnest
    +1
    Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....chances are, its a duck.
  • Prairie... robinsw... 2012/07/02 01:13:57
    Prairie Wind
    +1
    Justices are p.o.'d .... excerpted from the Weekly Standard ..

    "Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito forcefully disagree with Roberts in their dissent. “[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not,” the four Justices write. “[W]e have never—never—treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’ Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a ‘penalty.’”'
  • robinsw... Prairie... 2012/07/03 07:22:21
    robinswebnest
    +1
    I wonder if they have to pay this 'tax'? I bet they, like congress and the prez don't pay anything into all the fancy benefits they get....free health care, free transportation...oh wait, it isn't free....WE pay for it.
  • Prairie... robinsw... 2012/07/03 07:33:45
    Prairie Wind
    +1
    BINGO!
  • Al C. robinsw... 2012/07/29 12:09:09 (edited)
    Al C.
    +2
    How can it be constitutionally legal to tax you on something that it constitutionally illegal to force you to purchase???????????????
  • robinsw... Al C. 2012/07/29 19:27:40
    robinswebnest
    +1
    And that is the problem....no other president would have even tried this end run. Except obama has the liberal media that plays the spin doctor for every ugly obama commits. I just hope that all the states government refuses to enforce obamacare. That will certainly take the teeth out of the largest tax increase in our history.
  • Prairie... Al C. 2012/07/31 06:06:51 (edited)
    Prairie Wind
    Medicare Premiums:

    Look clearly at the 2014 rate compared to the 2013 rate!

    For those of you who are on Medicare, read the following. It's short, but
    important and you probably haven't heard about it in the Mainstream News:

    "The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present
    Monthly Fee of $96.40, rising to:

    $104.20 in 2012

    $120.20 in 2013

    And

    $247.00 in 2014."

    These are Provisions incorporated in the Obamacare Legislation, purposely delayed so as not to confuse the 2012 Re-Election Campaigns. Send this to all Seniors that you know, so they will know who's throwing them under the bus.
  • freebirdie 2012/06/29 16:03:06
    freebirdie
    +2
    I am no Constitutional law expert, but since Obama has flouted existing law (allowing illegals to pour over our borders,etc) don't you think it is wiser to pass this and have it repealed than to strike it down and have him allow it to keep going without explanation? It's not in what is argued about it (that it's not a tax) that matters, it's what is written in the bill and signed. I can write a bill about a purple dog and argue that it's blue to all the courts I face defending it. In writing it's still a purple dog. In writing, it's a tax and everyone knew/knows it. Congress does have the power to tax, and what the justices also noted is this is a power grab. I hate this bill and will help defeat it's implementation in every way I legally can. THANKFULLY the election is just a few short months away and not two or three years! Start pointing out the major flaws in this bill--and the tax implications to the poor and middle class!!! Smack the college touchy-feely arses on the back of their heads!!!!--figuratively of course.
  • Prairie... freebirdie 2012/06/29 20:02:02 (edited)
    Prairie Wind
    As a preface, we're talking about Health Care, not the Immigration, just to be sure we have a common starting point, but you're thinking short term. This ruling legitimizes taxes on negative actions. Before this they taxed on income and financial activity, now it's taxing you on not doing something. This is your long term chaos. The short term chaos is throwing the borders open and giving all "free" health care, but the reality is that the health care is not free.

    The precedence is that regardless of whatever administration is in there, the anarchists just got a free gift and you have continual division of everything including people and country, because it will not depend upon the Constitituion, Rule of Law and Equality under the Law, but upon whose party gets in at any time. This illustrates the difference between a Republic and a pure Democracy. Under a Republic, everybody has certain unalienable rights with the rest being voted upon.

    Under a pure Democracy, it will depend upon the party in power. In other words, a pure Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting upon what's for lunch.
  • freebirdie Prairie... 2012/06/30 02:16:55
    freebirdie
    +1
    Well put.
    I was only using immigration as a point about Obama not obeying laws of the land, and the double-speak that comes out of his mouth.. (Other presidents look the other way on immigration as well, mainly because they are looking at the SS money as revenue they can steal too.) I do understand a lot of the long term effects, though I am not an insider by any stretch of the imagination. I just happen to read a lot and glean. Govt is not my savior, but I care about what happens in it. Have a great weekend and holiday, Prairie.
  • Prairie... freebirdie 2012/06/30 02:46:24
    Prairie Wind
    Many thanks to you too and many you have a great holiday weekend!. Hopefully you don't have the heat that is blistering this area .. it's still above 90F at 9:30 PM.

    Legal immigration I have no complaint about. However, here, those coming illegally across the border from Texas through Arizona have a way of coming through here with intent of looking for work that they won't even pay social security on and will send a major portion of their earnings back south across the border. The demographics have totally changed in the last 15 years and their physical presence is so obvious with taco stands on the street corners. I doubt Marshall Earp would have tolerated it.

    Regarding Presidents, this one should be impeached for violation of his oath of office. He's unworthy of representing our interests and obviously interested in only his.
  • freebirdie Prairie... 2012/06/30 03:17:08
    freebirdie
    My understanding is that even if they are illegal, some companies do take their taxes out as well as SS , but they don't file and the govt gets to keep the free money. That is why they like them here so much. They don't file returns and the govt gets to keep all that SS money. There was an article in the WSJ (?) I will try to look up and post. There are others that are paid under the table like they were never there.
    My hubby worked for a CA company years ago where the practice was hiring many illegals during the busy season. When they needed to lay off a bunch of people they would call in INS to do a raid. These people worked for months, received paychecks and had taxes withdrawn. They knew they could be caught any day, but were certainly never wanting to file for fear of being caught. They didn't want the hassle of trying to get across the border all over again. Not sure how all that tax and SS stuff works..

    Sorry, could take much time to find the article..I need to go. It was about the Govt making billions of dollars from them in SS.

    Obama has too much support to be impeached. The republicans wouldn't dare after Clinton. There are only 4 or 5 months left. He can't appoint any judges, he can't rush through any legislation, and he'll be on the defensive. It's Romney's to lose--but Obama lies well.
    Keep up the fight! Expose the lies and corruption! Pray for our nation! Night Prairie..
  • Prairie... freebirdie 2012/06/30 03:46:48
    Prairie Wind
    You will want to look at the requirements of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/a...

    This is the basis for both withholding collected employee deductions with the employer's match, both of which are quarterly submittled for the purpose of Social Security Taxes. Unless the employer submits the withholdings, the Goverment won't even get the money, especially when the employer is required to match the withholdings and a valid employee Social Security number will be required to assign the withholdings.

    So, the company may withhold the money, but not submit it or even claim they have the employees working for them, since they don't have valid Social Security cards and if the Government became aware of them being hired, the employer would be penalized for hiring illegal immigrants.

    Thus, the Government doesn't get the money if they don't know the employees work there and the illegal employees aren't going to complain about deductions they think will be submitted. They just go to a local bank that has wire services south where they can transfer their payments back to support family members on the south side of the border, and live on a minimal amount here while attempting to keep from attracting attention.
  • Merry☆ 2012/06/28 21:12:54 (edited)
  • Prairie... Merry☆ 2012/06/29 00:29:26
    Prairie Wind
    +2
    Now, they'll re-decorate the WH Christmas tree with images of Mao Zedong, Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers for their personal adoration!

    Obamas   Pimping
  • Clyde Prairie... 2012/06/29 13:12:29
    Clyde
    +1
    They already did that.
  • ☆56lady☆POTL~JLA~PWCM 2012/06/28 20:47:10
    ☆56lady☆POTL~JLA~PWCM
    +5
    Sad day in America :(

    falling of america
  • Cindy64... ☆56lady... 2012/06/29 03:00:02
    Cindy64~AFCL
    +3
    YES indeed my Sis so very much so!!
  • ☆56lady... Cindy64... 2012/06/29 18:56:59
    ☆56lady☆POTL~JLA~PWCM
    +2
    It will be a landslide for Romney at this point my dear friend ♥
  • Cindy64... ☆56lady... 2012/06/30 15:41:36
    Cindy64~AFCL
    +2
    YES it sure will indeed ...I so agree!!
  • GINGERBREAD 2012/06/28 20:09:45
    GINGERBREAD
    +5
    This ruling is very similar to the "DRED SCOTT DECISION" that Chief Justice Roger Taney made in the middle of the 1800's. If you remember, that was the decision that caused the CIVIL WAR. This decision by this Chief Justice Roberts, will not stand. it will take several elections before we can put this attrocious ruling in to the dustbin of history
  • Cindy64... GINGERB... 2012/06/30 15:42:47
    Cindy64~AFCL
    +2
    Good post and yes it is going to be a battle but we shall WIN !! You have a great day and take care. Thank you for your good reply.
  • Hawkeye 2012/06/28 19:53:20
    Hawkeye
    +5
    Chief Justice Roberts may INDEED have served his country in the most Patriotic manner possible..

    He may JUST have slammed the door on the re-election prospects of one Barack Hussein Obama and handed the White House,, AND the Congress,, over to the Republicans..

    Then it won't MATTER that the mandate and indeed,, the LAW itself,, in unconstitutional or not.. It will be Constitutionally REPEALED as per the WILL of WE,, the People and replaced with another plan that actually SOLVES the problems with Health Care in America instead of INCREASING them exponentially as Obamacare has done...
  • Alex 2012/06/28 18:39:56
    Alex
    +3
    I was greatly upset when I first heard the news, but now that I look at things, Chief Justice Roberts is one clever guy.

    Barack Obama championed up to its passage that Obamacare was not a tax, that it was "unfair" to call it a tax, and that Obamacare would not raise taxes. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, he's now got two options: Eat those words, or revise the law.

    My fellow conservatives, those liberals and progressives think they won. But from this day onward, Obamacare's going to become the most unpopular phrase in town. Whether they realize it or not, we have prevailed.
  • JP 2012/06/28 17:48:22
    JP
    +6
    I remember the historic shellacking in 2010. I am fully prepared for the battle leading up to another historic shellacking in 2012!
  • DefendnProtect 2012/06/28 17:34:45
    DefendnProtect
    +3
    Isn't this what Romney wanted too?

    Romney on Romneycare: 'a model for the nation'
  • JCD aka... Defendn... 2012/06/30 21:30:35
    JCD aka "biz"
    "A model for the nation", I agree with Romney.
  • cc 2012/06/28 17:26:52
    cc
    +3
    By formally converting “Obamcare” into “Obamatax,” the court allows Republicans to argue that Obama violated his 2008 pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class Americans.
    “I can make a firm pledge — under my plan, no family making less that $250,000 a will see any form of tax increase,” he said in a September 2008 campaign speech in New Hampshire.

    He spoke at a podium carrying a placard saying “Tax Relief for the Middle Class.”

    Prior to the law’s passage in 2010, Obama also denied it was a tax. In September 2009, Obama told ABC that the law “is absolutely not a tax increase.”
  • Wolfman cc 2012/07/02 04:23:50
    Wolfman
    +1
    Good observation.
  • Prairie... Wolfman 2012/07/02 04:50:58 (edited)
    Prairie Wind
    +1
    That's why Justice Kennedy grilled Obama's lawyer when the this was presented to the Supreme Court for ruling and Obama's lawyer, said NO! Legally, Obama already had the Constitutional authority to impose this as a tax, but as stated previously, he told everyone he wasn't going to tax families making less than $250,000. His lawyer lied to the Supreme Court, otherwise this would never have progressed for a ruling! Now, it's what Roberts has done that has made this an even bigger issue.
  • Wolfman Prairie... 2012/07/02 05:00:54
    Wolfman
    +1
    That's exactly what Justice Roberts anticipated.
  • Prairie... Wolfman 2012/07/02 05:09:44
    Prairie Wind
    No wonder he's behind walls on Malta! He's either taken the poison pill approach or doesn't realize the effect of the precedence he's established. Obama Care is a secondary issue and the lessor of the two. The Constitution doesn't give Roberts the authority to do what he's done.
  • Wolfman Prairie... 2012/07/02 08:34:03
    Wolfman
    +1
    It is just now dawning on the liberals that they won the battle and lost the war.
  • John Hall 2012/06/28 16:51:45
    John Hall
    +1
    now that this has happened with the health care bill how will it affect the election .
  • CAPISCE John Hall 2012/06/28 16:54:42
    CAPISCE
    +2
    It helps Romney big time
  • John Hall CAPISCE 2012/06/28 17:20:45
    John Hall
    +3
    I hope your right .
  • Luke John Hall 2012/06/28 16:54:55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next » Last »

News & Politics

2013/06/19 11:34:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals