Countdown to the 5-4 decision announcement

[Valmy]

This is probably better for Romney then Obama with regards to the election I'd think, the Tea Party will be super pumped to come out and vote, while if they'd won I think a lot would have passed on Romney.

Ah what a world we live in where the only significant piece of legislation Obama managed to get through Congress being struck down by the Supreme Court, so that he would have none at all, would have been considered a positive for his election prospects.

[CountDeMoney]

Seedys pants are a dairy factory?

Doesn't this go against his narrative of the terribly partisan and corrupt Supreme court?  Can't wait to see his reconciliation of his two positions.

Obviously Roberts doesn't have the balls just yet to entrench himself in history as El Partisan.

Thomas and Scalia are so going to beat him up in the locker room.

[jimmy olsen]

Hmm... I wonder how this will effect future cases.

The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.

[Sheilbh]

Ah what a world we live in where the only significant piece of legislation Obama managed to get through Congress

Dodds-Frank and Stimulus are pretty significant too.  This is the most significant.

Is it just me or does this seem the silliest option of rulings? The Federal government can't make you buy health insurance but they can tax you if you don't

[JacobL]

 

[DGuller]

Nailed it.  SC went 5-4 that the mandate wasn't allowed by the Commerce Clause.

[Fireblade]

The tears on Fox News are so delicious.

[stjaba]

Hmm... I wonder how this will effect future cases.

The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.

Probably little impact. In the past 15-20 years, there have been less than a half dozen cases which turned on the Commerce Clause. I haven't read the opinion yet because it's not available, but I imagine the reasoning is based on the fact that the mandate requires individuals to participate in interstate commerce. I can't imagine too many other laws where that wouldnbe that case. That distinction aside, the Commerce Clause has been so broadly interpreted that it is fairly easy for legislation to withstand Commerce Clause challenges.

Edit:

The opinion is at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

[The Brain]

Do you become retarded by being on the supreme court or are you put there because you are retarded?

[CountDeMoney]

This is probably better for Romney then Obama with regards to the election I'd think, the Tea Party will be super pumped to come out and vote, while if they'd won I think a lot would have passed on Romney.

Ah what a world we live in where the only significant piece of legislation Obama managed to get through Congress being struck down by the Supreme Court, so that he would have none at all, would have been considered a positive for his election prospects.

Mittens and the Teabaggers would have more ammo if any of it had been shot down.

[Sheilbh]

Probably little impact. In the past 15-20 years, there have been less than a half dozen cases which turned on the Commerce Clause. I haven't read the opinion yet because it's not available, but I imagine the reasoning is based on the fact that the mandate requires individuals to participate in interstate commerce. I can't imagine too many other laws where that wouldnbe that case. That distinction aside, the Commerce Clause has been so broadly interpreted that it is fairly easy for legislation to withstand Commerce Clause challenges.

Individual retirement accounts of some kind?

[katmai]

Can someone explain Derspicy post to me?

[Faeelin]

Hey we decided,
Healthcare's crazy,
But you can tax it.
So it stays maybe?

Ders, that doesn't seem to be what happened at all. He could've voted to strike it down in its entirey and that would've been it.

[Grey Fox]

Yes! Victory for America!

[derspiess]

Can someone explain Derspicy post to me?

Never mind.  I originally saw that the decision was 6-3, and it turned out to be 5-4 after all, with Roberts essentially casting the tiebreaking vote to uphold the law.  The scenario I was talking about did not happen.