More than this, the Chief Justice, John Roberts--a notorious conservative confirmed under embattled President Bush--sided with the four justices who leaned left of center: Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Breyer. Consequently, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented to the rulings of the Court, and they dissented in harsh manner.
Let's start with the basics: In this case, we had the challenge of the medicaid portion that would force states to take money, changes to the program, and other alterations or risk losing all of their money for medicaid if they decided not to opt-in. This, under the Court Opinion said was a big "no-no"! The Court Opinion basically said that the federal government could not force any state to take money for the changes in the law for Medicare or Medicaid. So, under the decision, this basically lets States out of being forced into the larger new law and doesn't lock them into anything significant.
Secondly, the largest challenge of the law: the universal mandate. This portion of the Affordable Care Act, was the biggest controversy. The President and Congress, led by Democrats with a few Republicans, believed--in what they probably thought was best--to make sure that all members of the US had healthcare. They, however, didn't expect a large push-back from voters. Largely, the Universal Mandate was considered bad form and a good portion of the population did not agree with this. They believed and still do to some extent, that government should not and could not force all members of a nation to pay into the program of universal healthcare. In the opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, the arguments were long, but in the short: the government's claim that it could be upheld by virtue of the Commerce Clause (meaning it would be a matter of commerce) was insufficient since no Congress has issued that not participating in commerce is commerce, that the Necessary and Proper Clause (that Congress had the necessary and proper power to force individuals to buy insurance) was neither applicable because of the interpretation was that the clause was only enforceable for issues granted by the Constitution, and finally the use of Taxation. This last part is what the Court opinion focused on, saying that the individual mandate (universal mandate) could be predicated on the powers of Congress through taxation since it is a universal concept.
In essence, the Court made many new friends and enemies. But in an article by IMCitizen called, "Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius" he posits that this was actually some crafty work by the Chief Justice to upend the actual law itself. You can read for yourself, but I want to point out two particular points of this article that I agree with. While Roberts may have made some enemies and some complicated decisions, he in effect dismantled the ability of the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party, and Democratic members to call upon the collective use of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause as their defense. Their new defense is that it is taxable, meaning that they'd have to approve of a tax-hike to pay for the Affordable Care Act in its entirety--especially in our economic climate, this doesn't look well. Secondly, the Medicaid portion basically says that if a state refuses to opt-in for the Affordable Care Act provisions for exchange programs and other medical care necessities, the government cannot take away the current levels of funding for the state. So, this means--as IMCitizen correctly identifies as the out for all Republican controlled states--which is about 28 or more state.
So did Chief Justice Roberts do something political on the bench? Probably, but he did it in concert with the four more liberal justices. Basically signing that those Justices agreed that a state could opt-out of the program and affirmed that the individual mandate is predicated on taxation and fee assessments than the power and duty of Congress to be able to control it.
Let's start with the basics: In this case, we had the challenge of the medicaid portion that would force states to take money, changes to the program, and other alterations or risk losing all of their money for medicaid if they decided not to opt-in. This, under the Court Opinion said was a big "no-no"! The Court Opinion basically said that the federal government could not force any state to take money for the changes in the law for Medicare or Medicaid. So, under the decision, this basically lets States out of being forced into the larger new law and doesn't lock them into anything significant.
Secondly, the largest challenge of the law: the universal mandate. This portion of the Affordable Care Act, was the biggest controversy. The President and Congress, led by Democrats with a few Republicans, believed--in what they probably thought was best--to make sure that all members of the US had healthcare. They, however, didn't expect a large push-back from voters. Largely, the Universal Mandate was considered bad form and a good portion of the population did not agree with this. They believed and still do to some extent, that government should not and could not force all members of a nation to pay into the program of universal healthcare. In the opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, the arguments were long, but in the short: the government's claim that it could be upheld by virtue of the Commerce Clause (meaning it would be a matter of commerce) was insufficient since no Congress has issued that not participating in commerce is commerce, that the Necessary and Proper Clause (that Congress had the necessary and proper power to force individuals to buy insurance) was neither applicable because of the interpretation was that the clause was only enforceable for issues granted by the Constitution, and finally the use of Taxation. This last part is what the Court opinion focused on, saying that the individual mandate (universal mandate) could be predicated on the powers of Congress through taxation since it is a universal concept.
In essence, the Court made many new friends and enemies. But in an article by IMCitizen called, "Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius" he posits that this was actually some crafty work by the Chief Justice to upend the actual law itself. You can read for yourself, but I want to point out two particular points of this article that I agree with. While Roberts may have made some enemies and some complicated decisions, he in effect dismantled the ability of the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party, and Democratic members to call upon the collective use of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause as their defense. Their new defense is that it is taxable, meaning that they'd have to approve of a tax-hike to pay for the Affordable Care Act in its entirety--especially in our economic climate, this doesn't look well. Secondly, the Medicaid portion basically says that if a state refuses to opt-in for the Affordable Care Act provisions for exchange programs and other medical care necessities, the government cannot take away the current levels of funding for the state. So, this means--as IMCitizen correctly identifies as the out for all Republican controlled states--which is about 28 or more state.
So did Chief Justice Roberts do something political on the bench? Probably, but he did it in concert with the four more liberal justices. Basically signing that those Justices agreed that a state could opt-out of the program and affirmed that the individual mandate is predicated on taxation and fee assessments than the power and duty of Congress to be able to control it.
