Why don’t I just throw up some reactions from political leaders and stakeholders here.
First of all, on the Republican side. They are ready to vote in Congress to repeal the entire law as soon as the week of July 9:
House Republicans will respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law by trying to repeal it after Congress returns from its July Fourth recess, aides said.
The House will vote to repeal the health care law — again — the week of July 9, the office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said. But it will amount to little: Democrats didn’t want to repeal it when its constitutionality was still in question.
What you won’t hear about: “repeal and replace.” The House GOP is out for blood and nothing else.
This will become a rallying cry on the right through to the election, that the Court couldn’t get rid of Obamacare but they will. And it will cause a lot of mouth-frothing. But it certainly means nothing over the next year. I think the electoral impact is negligible as well; it’s not like people fired up against the health care law weren’t going to vote before the Court ruled.
The Democratic message can be best distilled in a speech on the floor of the Senate from Harry Reid:
I’m pleased to see the Supreme Court put the rule of law ahead of partisanship, and ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional [...]
Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress continue to target the rights and benefits guaranteed under this law.
They would like to give the power of life and death back to insurance companies.
But the United States Supreme Court has spoken. This matter is settled [...]
It’s time for Republicans to stop refighting yesterday’s battles.
Now that this matter is settled, I hope we can work together to create jobs and secure this country’s economic future.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney and the President plan to give statements later today.
Nobody is likely to give a statement on the broader implications of what ends up being a pretty conservative (small c) ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts. This is Lyle Denniston from the SCOTUSBlog liveblog:
“The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.”
It should be said that many experts pushed back on that (here’s an example). Maybe health care is a unique case. But this sure looks like a limitation on the spending power. And in the immediate term, it’s not clear what this means for Medicaid. It seems like it gives Tea Party governors a pretext to resist federal program partnerships. When Medicaid was first announced, it was hospitals that browbeat the recalcitrant states into participating. We’ll see if they have the same power today.
…Mitt Romney is speaking: “What the Supreme Court didn’t do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day as president.” There’s no way for him to do that, but OK.
Other reactions on the flip.
Chuck Schumer: “This decision preserves not only the health care law, but also the Supreme Court’s position as an institution above politics. Just as Speaker Boehner vowed not to spike the football if the law was overturned, Republicans should not carry on out of pique now that the law has been upheld. Democrats remain willing to cooperate on potential improvements to the law, but now that all three branches of government have ratified this law, the time for quarreling over its validity is over. Congress must now return its full-time focus to the issue that matters most to the public, and that is jobs.”
Kirsten Gillibrand: “I am pleased the Supreme Court reaffirmed the hard fought progress that was made to ensure that no one can be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition, young adults will be covered, prescription drug costs for seniors will be reduced, preventive care including life-saving mammograms will be accessible and that insurance companies can’t cancel their coverage when you get sick. It is time to get beyond scoring political points and get back to finding common core values and passing legislation that will help grow our economy and get more people back to work.”
Nancy Pelosi: “In passing health reform, we made history for our nation and progress for the American people. We completed the unfinished business of our society and strengthened the character of our country. We ensured health care would be a right for all, not a privilege for the few. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed our progress and protected that right, securing a future of health and economic security for the middle class and for every American.”
National Nurses United:
The Supreme Court decision should not be seen as the end of the efforts by health care activists for a permanent fix to our broken healthcare system, according to the nation’s largest union and professional association of registered nurses today.
To achieve that end, the 175,000-member National Nurses United pledged to step up a campaign for a reform that is not based on extending the grip of a failed private insurance system, but “on a universal program based on patient need, not on profits or ability to pay. That’s Medicare for all,” said NNU Co-President Jean Ross, RN. “It is not time to stop, but a reminder to begin that effort anew.”
Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison of the Progressive Caucus: “This ruling is a significant victory for the American people. After a two-year legal battle, the Supreme Court confirmed today that the Affordable Care Act will continue to provide millions of Americans with health coverage. The health care reform act provides that children will not be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition, young adults will be able to stay on their family health plan, and that Americans can keep their health care insurance if they get a major illness. The Affordable Care Act will now take its rightful place with Social Security and Medicare as powerful examples of what we can do together to improve the lives of every American.”




15 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
So Predictable. Corporate power won in the end over the hatred of the black man in the white house. Hard on those conservative judges whether to go after Obamas signiture accomplishment or follow the dictates of Wellpoint and Blue Cross Blue Shield. The one thing I was looking forward to if mandate was ruled against was the health care stocks tanking. Now, just the opposite.
“”"”"Stocks of hospital companies rose sharply Thursday after initial reports said the Supreme Court had upheld the individual insurance requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
HCA Holdings stock rose 8%, and Community Health Systems stock also rose 8%.”"”"”
“…they would like to give the power of life and death back to the insurance companies…”
Well, since Obama, helped by Reid and the democrats, gave 30 million new customers to those same insurance companies, thereby making the leech-connection that much firmer and more lucrative for them, it seems a little hypocritical for Reid to be pimping this bullshit…
As always, Arthur Silber gets it right:
“First, and this merits strong emphasis, the “health care reform” legislation will fatally undercut all the goals set forth by Democrats and progressives themselves. To restate the point: if the Democrats and progressives are sincere and genuinely committed to what they say their goals are, they should be working day and night to defeat this abomination. That most of them are doing the opposite is deeply revealing. And they are doing the opposite for the most transparent and pathetic of reasons: they are desperate for something they can call a “win” as an alleged demonstration of perceived political power.”"
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/06/choosing-blindness-and-stupidity-and.html
If an appellant on appeal makes a different argument than that initially argued at lower court level he loses, correct?
I’m having difficulty with the fact that a law from congress drafted in a certain way,(ICC) to justify individual mandate, is basically shot down, but upheld by the Court because a Judge’s rational that the tax and spend power of the congress makes the mandate, constitutional, but the law as presented to Justices, says the penalty in the ACA is not a tax? Twisted logic in my eyes. Roberts finds the law constitutional, on language not contained in the law? Something is not right here. Basically Roberts is being given a free pass to put forth a rational, to justify the mandate, not contained in the law. So appellant should be able to make new argument, on appeal and win? This is what Roberts has done. Its like approving a zoning by law change that is essentially “spot zoning,” for a corporation. Better yet a case of infectious invalidity when issuing a building permit? It’s like declaring a man property of another man when the law says all men are created equal, because of skin color?
Just as Jefferson feared… Corporations winning all the time and grinding the governed into bone meal.
Follow the money…..
— Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison of the Progressive Caucus: “This ruling is a significant victory for the American people —
Whores, dick licking corporate whores.
It was a win – win for the Insurance pirates.
‘And they are doing the opposite for the most transparent and pathetic of reasons: they are desperate for something they can call a “win” as an alleged demonstration of perceived political power.”
I consider myself a progressive, like Jefferson. He was certainly a progressive for his day. He did not trust government, corporations, politicians or political parties. The aligned interests in this “win” are the “Asselephant.” The shadow third party composed of both demorats and Rethugs, beholding to the corporate dollar and those HC stocks doing well today as some have pointed out. Scalia is snickering in bed tonight knowing full well the conservative state based health insurance corporations have protected their monopolies and now have use of the tax code to compel business and get richerrrrrrr! Sweet! Slave owners snickered after the Scott decision as Taney protected slavery in addition to the continued use of fugitive slave laws, to keep the slave, enslaved….
you mostly get it accurately.
this was the serve up from the premier advocate of the federalist society, chief justice roberts.
it vouchsafes totalitarianism for ever.
this ruling has consequences few seem to recognize.
since the taxing power of the usg has now been exempted from restraint, think about how that will bounce into the future.
consider, the usg wants to conduct unending wars. without any declaration of war as the constitution stipulates. and, historically his has been done off the balance sheet, driving up deficits. but now, the usg has been enabled to impose a tax on the citizenry to finance directly these wars.
you either pay, in addition to your regular taxation, or you become a tax scofflaw. to be investigated by the irs.
you may laugh, but what this decision did was to establish the irs as the usa’s secret police.
and anything contemptuous of the constitution that the usg promotes, that invites opposition, those opponents will be targeted by the irs.
all freedoms will now become sequestered as long as the executive branch of the usg describes its transgression as tax policy/practices.
chief justice roberts has just taken this country down into the river styx. he is not a conservative. he is a stalinist.
The Reps won’t do shit because ACA benefits corporate profits. Theater yes. Substance no. Justice Roberts–one of the most pro-corporate judges what can be got–sided with ACA. What does that say to about this? The consumption of a product that has received the status of a tax.
“So Predictable. Corporate power won in the end over the hatred of the black man in the white house.”
Ding! The shade that throws trump is green.
Except for the NNU comments, this sounds like a bunch of partisan mumbo-jumbo if you ask me. Now that Obamacare has been found constitutional, who’s going to pay for the rising health care costs? And won’t this mandate become a burden on our already struggling middle-class (another bill leading to more debt)?
If we go by how conservatives and conservaDems vote (and not how they yammer), won’t our health care premiums have to go up in order to pay for rising costs (probably after the election, though) and, in 2014, will our banks be licking their credit-lending chops when we need help paying off a new mandated expense?
David, I think you’re asking good questions, but the bottom line is, more money for the HMO’s, when what we really needed was to get these corporate blowflies out of the entire healthcare system and go to single-payer.
tanbark, I agree. If we had a single-payer or a public option, then I wouldn’t mind a mandate so much. Because then I’d know that we were getting what we were paying for. Obamacare gives us some icing while the corporations get the rest of the cake.
Simple: the deadbeats. Actually, that’s not correct. The truth is everybody is gonna be bankrolling the rising health care costs — as they always have. Nothing has changed there. But it’s double or even triple jeopardy for the “deadbeats” and “freeloaders” who (a) can’t afford the tax and/or (b) refuse to pay the tax on principal which President Aceveda MUST froth, foam, fatwah, slime, smear, and castigate into his stump speeches between now and Election Day in order to filch a plurality of retarded votes from the “True Believers” so that this country does not inch one iota from the centrist slave/master plantation …
Boy, Art Silber fucking nailed it too, especially his take down of the “B-B-But The Law Helps Somebody” excuse for being morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt. Last time I saw such rationales being played out was the “Well If It Makes One Iraqi Smile – The War Was A Thing Good” cop-out from fucking hell. Really?!? One single person in the Middle East grinning like Terri Schaivo auto-magically justifies it?!? Bankrupt is an understatement – it pure morbid. Sociopath style morbid. It’s like some inverted form of Passover from the Bible … or like a really twisted variation of a game on “The Price Is Right” where you only need to hear one honk confirming you got one number right in the price of the woodchipper in order to win the right to hurl whomever you fuckin’ please directly into the woodchipper …
And so it should be. Taxes should be about raising revenue, not about coercive social engineering by the “we know best” class. But of course that hasn’t been true for decades, so second-best is to make them call it what it is and live with the political consequences.