You can guarantee that the insurance industry will go all out to lobby the government to enforce the mandate now that it stands. They were sort of caught in a bind between lobbying for the mandate or waiting for the bill to get struck down. It's clear where we're headed now and I'm certain they'll pay off enough members of Congress to figure out how to force people to buy insurance.
It's not over yet for the bill- since Romney would almost certainly reverse the bill (unless there was a democrat supermajority in congress, but there's no way voters vote for two parties these days). At least the mandate is there, the constitutionality can, was, and will still be debated, but that mandate was the nucleus of the whole bill. Without it, the healthcare law is null and void.
I just don't agree with that reading and I think I've made clear why. I have yet to see in the opinion anything that addresses my concern. I feel like Roberts took a "cheap" way out of making a controversial ruling. I'd understand the interstate commerce argument better than this one personally.
My brother, a lawyer at the Consumer Protection Agency, predicted this victory from the beginning and never wavered. He didn't think it would be 5-4 though. He thought it would be 6-3 (incl. Kennedy, must have been) or 9-0 in favor of upholding the whole thing. Since Kennedy didn't go for it, here's a poser: Has there ever before been a majority opinion authored by a majority of female justices? This is Roberts, Breyer, and three women. Making the biggest call since Citizens' United at least. Amazing on so many levels.
I think you might be confusing the individual mandate with the Medicare expansion. The enforcement of the individual mandate is through the IRS which states have no say over. The USSC struck down the Medicare expansion saying that the Federal Government can't threaten to take away all Medicare funding from states. Anyway as other posters have noted if you are complaining about paying the bills under our current system everyone is already paying the bills for the uninsured. Hospitals are required by law and doctors through professional ethics to provide emergency care to everyone regardless of whether they can pay or not. Right now that cost is paid by everyone through higher medical bills. Under the mandate that means that there is a system for making sure ahead of time that practically everyone has the insurance to pay for medical care. The hoped for end result is that hospitals and doctors won't have to charge higher rates to make up for the uninsured.
Having read a bit further, I do agree with you that it seems like he seemed to be reinforcing the fact that the judiciary itself was limited in curbing federal power to a certain degree. I don't think there's an "A-HA" moment where you can clearly see him eneumerate specific limits, unless someone has read a bit further along. However, from all that he has written, it is clear that this is nowhere near a blank cheque.
This is a tangent but for everyone who says there is no difference between Obama and Bush consider that if Bush was able to have a third term, or if McCain had won, how different things might be if instead of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotamayor on the court there were two more Alitos.
I don't think Romney could nullify the complete law without Congressional repeal. What he could do is issue executive orders directing the IRS and other Executive branch agencies to not enforce aspects of the law.
Looks like Roberts is smart enough to realize he will be the swing vote so long as there is a block of justices motivated by nothing other than politics.
How many republicans would have to win seats in congress for a repeal to be necessary? Also, I think the bill is very dependent on itself- in other words if one part gets repealed it falls apart. As for Roberts, I'm really surprised he favoured Obama here. Haven't heard of a 180 like that since Earl Warren.
For a true repeal, you'd need 60 GOP Senators if the Dems decided to filibuster - and 60 GOP Senators is not even a remote possibility. So repeal would have to be done more creatively to work.
It really is amazing. In dissent, Scalia seemed incensed at the ruling. I wonder if Roberts, at least in part, used this as a way to assert his authority as Chief Justice. That this is, in fact, his court, and that he isn't a tool of the Right, and is not to be taken for granted. Yes, very interesting on many levels. Good point about the female members of the Court. Some of the dissent: The dissent tosses out the entire health care law, dismissing the case for it as "feeble" and a "vast judicial overreach." It argues that "against a mountain of evidence," its backers offer only the "flimsiest of indications to the contrary." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/health-care-dissent_n_1634514.html I think that this quote from Major (quoting Roberts) can't be repeated enough. Roberts is essentially saying that if Congress passes a law, it is duty of the Supreme Court to find a way to uphold it, if the way is there. Not to strike it down simply because they can. I think that's a big deal going forward.
