SCOTUS: ObamaCare Decision

Upheld - perhaps with one of those screwy decisions that can't be held as precedent. Or maybe they just spell out exactly how Congress needs to change it for it to be legal.

 

Struck down 5-4 by the court's Republican majority in a political decision.

 

5-4 to junk would be the latest Exhibit A of the Soprano family and their henchmen running roughshod over any and all opposition -- which is why it's precisely what I expect. I'm sure Roberts would love to see a more-emphatic lean to the "no", but can't see how he'll get it.

 

You could say that they force people to buy a Prius. You get a tax credit if you buy a Prius. Here, you get a tax credit if you have health insurance. It's just structured differently. Either way, they are taxes.

 

I agree with Dick that this would be valid under the taxing power, but I don't think the case is going to be decided on those grounds. First of all, if this is considered a tax, it's hard to reconcile that with the Anti-Injunction Act issue, under which no one could challenge the law until a tax is actually imposed. (I know the Obama administration tried to argue that this isn't a tax for Anti-Injunction Act purposes, but is a tax on the merits of the case, but I have a hard time buying that.)

In any case, the parties and the Court didn't spend a lot of time on the tax argument. This whole show has been almost entirely about the Commerce Clause. We haven't come this far to get a decision on other grounds. I guess that could happen if the Court is just hopelessly split on the Commerce Clause and is searching for some other way to decide the case. But I don't see that happening. I think Scalia, Thomas and probably Alito are itching to roll back Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, and they'll want to force the Court to face the issue head on.

 

Side bet: How many written opinions do we get out of this? Wouldn't be shocked to see four, expecting three.

 

I bet four. It's going to be like Citizens United. One-hundred-plus pages.

Wouldn't be shocked to see five. Majority, Scalia no matter what, Kennedy no matter what, Thomas, then perhaps one of the other liberals. If Stevens was still on the Court, I'd say five for sure.

 

I think it'll be many more than that. I expect each Justice to write something. At least seven or eight.

 

You actually might be right. I can't see Ginsburg not writing, for example.

I do predict the following, with a high degree of confidence: There will be a lot about this decision that is inscrutable to anybody except top-notch practicioners and professors of Constitutional law.

 

. . . since they are, as has been obvious. Scalia's broad attitude, especially, is beyond odeous.

 

But 5-4 to uphold wouldn't be political?