I haven't heard details, but a Supreme Court site reported that the constitutionality of the mandate was upheld, not through the commerce clause, but as a tax. Like all, I'm awaiting details, but this could be a BIG day for the President.

Justice Roberts reportedly authored the decision. Please note that the story isn't officially confirmed, but the email alerts I get have been accurate in the past.

I think this is the first day I have ever been happy with Justice Roberts.

Second Obama term here we come

<<<waits for Republican BB members to attack lol

Like I said in the C&J thread, I doubt Roberts is going to get anymore conservative dinner party invites after this.

Was I the only local surprised by this decision?



If that's true, the reverse is also true for his opponent.

It's 4 months still election day. Still a long time to go. Though to be honest I haven't paid attention at all to the news for the last month so I have zero clue regarding the political landscape in the last 24/7.

All the media was basically WRONG. CNN apparently was so anxious for a doom/gloom scenario for the President that they had to change their banner.



https://twitter.com/onthemedia/status/218349233407934466/photo/1


TIS

Man times have changed since CNN was the Clinton News Network.

I can't wait to read the decision. Upholding the mandate as a tax is so interesting.

However, if you favor the Act, don't do the wave yet. The decision may leave the states with some options.

Honestly, with this supreme court I had little hope the mandate would survive. When I heard Scalia's little hissy fit/President Obama trashing in the AZ law decision (don't remember his exact words), I did wonder, IF knowing THIS decision was coming, simply pissed him off so much he had to lash out.

TIS

A tweet from Ben Shapiro:

"This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dredd Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration."

From NRO:

I honestly cannot believe this many Americans are retarded and think this way. As if one law will make premiums go through the roof. God damn I'm ashamed to say I'm American. Selfish assholes, all of you.

We're gonna get this from that fringe the next few days, right?

(Even when I' pissed with some of the bullshit in this country, I'm never ashamed to say I'm an American. Usually you never hear right-wingers pull that shame card, but today isn't normal.)

Current headline on right-wing site DailyCaller:

Congratulations, Americans: The government owns your bodies

Boehner better hold off on the Holder contempt vote for a while. It's not going to make the big splash he wants today.

i jumped the gun on the second term comment i know, i am just a bit shocked at this ruling honestly

but reading Robert's decision it makes sense IMHO

It is fascinating. This will be a decision studied in law schools for generations. I am most interested in the language the majority used to remove the mandate from the Commerce Clause.

If conservatives want a silver lining on the mandate vote, it may rest in dicta that limits the expansive application of the Clause.

Many don't realize that the Commerce Clause provided the constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Long way to go. Four months is an eternity in national politics. The election won't be decided until after the conventions, and don't forget that no one does the "October Surprise" like the Republicans. But this is still a critical win for Obama and he's at least a marginal favorite at this point.

The side of me that pulls over to look at car wrecks is telling me to turn on Rush Limbaugh right now. But I won't .

You know Kly, I think you and me are just about the only people in America who know this as you posted: "...the Commerce Clause provided the constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1964." I teach that in my classes. I too want to read the Court's opinion about commerce.

But here's what Robert's wrote about taxing: "Simply put, Congress may tax and spend," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "This grant gives the federal government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate."

"The federal government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid or otherwise control,” Roberts wrote.

Here's Olivant teaching the Emancipation Proclamation.

Well, you tell me PB, how do people get themselves emancipated without a proclamation?

While I don't fully understand the decision in all its complexities, this is a banner day for the millions of uninsured Americans out there. As a real estate agent, I know how hard it can me on a family. While we're lucky enough to be covered under my husband's benefits, none of the other agents in my firm have insurance. They pay about $1600 per MONTH to be covered, and they still have huge deductibles and so on. I can't imagine having to earn enough to cover that nut, in addition to my mortgage, taxes, utilities and food bills!

This also means that our kids, who are now entering college, will be covered, even for the first years after they graduate.

In the words of Joe Biden, "This is a big f*cking deal."
It marks a real change in the dynamics of the Supreme Court, it makes Obama the transformative president we'd hoped for and best of all it has set the tea baggers hair on fire.

The best public relations news Obamacare has ever gotten?



http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/06/28/no-spin/%20

People moving to Canada because of Obamacare

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

~Do they know about Canada's HC system? Oh dear.

And of course Mittens will repeal it on "day one."




TIS

Assholes. Reminds me of when the fringe lunatics on the other side, like Cher and Alec Baldwin, were moving to Canada if Bush got elected. Never mind how this country allowed them to make their fortunes. And last I checked, they're both still here. Come to think of it, I think Baldwin is marrying a niece of his .

The only nutjob actor who I can think of making good on such a promise was Michael Moriarty. The guy may be crazy, but he stood by his words. I give him credit for that.

"October Surprise" is right, personally I am concerned with the astonishing amount of cash being raised and spent by special interests on both sides (especially Conservative Super PACs). Tons of stuff can happen until election day so it is still early. But Obama does have one major accomplishment in his term that has eluded many Democratic Presidents for generations. I give him that much.

Here's one interesting little difference between Conservative Wet Dream Romney's health care plan and Kenyan Socialist Obama's health care plan:

Okay, it's pretty clear. Already, several Republicans are touting the law as a tax. That will remain the primary theme of the Republicans' campaign from here on out.

And the ienvitable counter-spin will come too.

"Mitt's Tax (Before he was against it!)"

"One of the paradoxes of the controversy is that the individual insurance mandate is actually a conservative Republican idea. The Republican-friendly Heritage Foundation think tank proposed the concept (PDF) more than two decades ago. Before Obama and many Democratic leaders embraced the mandate, the measure had the support of many powerful Republicans. As late as June 2009, Senator Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told Fox News: “There is a bipartisan consensus to have an individual mandate.”

Once Obama made it a major part of his agenda, however, Republicans changed their minds. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a vindication of the president’s decision to push health reform as his main political goal."

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-28/supreme-court-supports-obamacare-and-bolsters-obama

I knew everything couldnt be rosy as it relates to Justice Roberts decision, check this out:

"Chief Justice Roberts also made sure to keep the broader impact of his decision narrow, by saying explicitly that the Affordable Care Act only survived if viewed as a tax and that had Congress had to rely on the Commerce Clause to pass the law, the law would have failed.

"Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product," wrote Chief Justice Roberts. "If the power to "regulate" something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous."

Legal experts suspect that this language could be seized upon in the future by conservatives or others looking to strike down existing—and in some instances longstanding—federal laws regulating everything from the environment to consumer safety. Many of those laws were passed under the Commerce Clause.

"Make no mistake, Roberts gave the conservatives a very big gift—a ticking time bomb that could explode in cases down the line," said Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal-leaning civil-rights organization in Washington. "The Commerce Clause undergirds the entire fabric of government and a lot of our laws."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424..._LEFTTopStories

Amazing how on a day liberals "win," they still think they've lost. Such defeatist-trained mindsets really nobody any good.