Sick Decision
Less than a day old, there's already been so much written about the health care decision I doubt there's much I can add. I admit I'm a bit baffled by the opinion--it seems Chief Justice Roberts was trying to split it down the middle, but this case was unsplittable. So he declares (alone) Congress can't force you to do certain things but they can penalize you if you don't and, presto chango, that's some sort of a tax so it's okay.
As I've argued for months, I think this particular outcome can help Mitt Romney--it makes Obamacare, still quite unpopular, a major issue in the election, and energizes the base. But I don't buy a very common argument among conservatives that they can hang this big new tax hike on President Obama after he denied, over and over, it was a tax. I mean all he has to say is "It's Justice Roberts' opinion that this is a tax but I've never claimed that. Next question?"
PS Let me note in my predictions for 2012 I wrote "The Supreme Court will not find any part of Obamacare unconstitutional." I'm going to give myself that one.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:10 AM
8 Comments:
I don't know. I think the ruling crystallizes a confusing issue. It seems that Romney's attacks on the Joe Bob circuit are attempts to noe undercut and disrupt settled law to appease some screamers. Since he was for it before he was against it, his claims seem a little hollow.
My biggest concern about the decision is the apparent acceptance of the unbelievably objectionable acronym for the Supremes in the major media. I mean the dreaded "SCOTUS" This inapposite quasi-military appellation sounds like a cross between a video game uber evil alliance and a crotch fungus.
Like Mayberry's town drunk, these OTUSes need to sent somewhere to sleep it off
If you didn't catch it, our old Law Prof Richard Epstein immediately noted the same incongruity you did in the Roberts opinion:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/taxation-and-regulation-under-the-health-care-act/
Anon 1: I just don't understand the point of saying Romney's attacks on Obamacare are hollow. No matter what else, on one side, you've got the guy who signed the bill, considers it his greatest achievement, and will fight to the death to keep it. On the other side, you've got the guy who's running on a promise to repeal it. If you're a voter who doesn't want the law, how can there be any confusion (even if you believe, against the facts, that Romney secretly loves the law).
There's something very significant about Justice Roberts calling it a tax. That makes it part of a budget matter, which means it can be dealt with in a reconciliation bill, which means it can be passed with 51 votes in the Senate, which means if the Republicans can take back the Senate at least they can repeal the mandate.
"If you're a voter who doesn't want the law, how can there be any confusion (even if you believe, against the facts, that Romney secretly loves the law)."
Apart from healthcare, Romney has the reputation for blowing in the wind. Any way nobody is saying Romney loves the law- he just doesn't love it now and if things change, he may love it again. Not a lot of depth to his position
Once again, a guy who blows in the wind and is no better than a coin flip versus the guy who would rather die that lose his signature piece of legislation--what's to think about?
I don't think LAGuy can get full credit for this prediction. The court did overturn the Medicaid carrot-and-stick part of the bill.
Bizarrely, I have heard that the justices voted 6-3 on this issue, and I have also heard they voted 7-2, and I have not found a list of the names of who was for or against this point.
Post a Comment
<< Home