TPMDC John Roberts
HCR/SCOTUS
How John Roberts Could Uphold 'Obamacare'
In his written opinion on a recent case regarding the constitutionality of suspicionless, forced strip searches of inmates, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts pointed at one way he could come down on the side of upholding President Obama's health care law and assuage libertarian fears of federal over-reach, some court-watchers speculate.
The constitutional questions in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington are different than those in the health care case. But experts see a potential connection in the broader philosophical point Roberts made in his concurring opinion.
Last week the Supreme Court held 5-4 that prisons may strip-search inmates, even those who are jailed for minor infractions, arguing that security concerns trump privacy in such an environment. Roberts wrote a short aside emphasizing that the court may later place limits to that power when necessary. The caveat suggests that Roberts is concerned about tarnishing his court's legacy by issuing opinions that reflect poorly on his tenure as chief justice in retrospect. And it highlights the fact that future courts can circumscribe federal powers -- including the one at stake in the fight over "Obamacare."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Adam Winkler, Affordable Care Act, HCR/SCOTUS, John Roberts, Obamacare, Tim Jost
John Roberts
John Roberts Faces A Legacy-Defining Predicament On 'Obamacare'
You're the chief justice of the United States, and you're presented with a choice: Either rebuke the political movement that gave you your dream job, or put your institution's reputation on the line by neutering a sitting president's signature legislation for the first time in 75 years.
This is the unenviable dilemma John Roberts faces as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on "Obamacare." Initial votes were cast by the justices last Friday, and a final decision on the law's constitutionality is expected by the end of June. And with four liberal justices considered a lock to uphold the law, Roberts is uniquely positioned to determine the law's fate, and faces considerable risks no matter what he chooses.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Affordable Care Act, Anthony Kennedy, Brian Fitzpatrick, Commerce Clause, HCR/SCOTUS, John Roberts, Lucas Powe, New Deal, Obamacare, Supreme Court, Tim Jost
Health Care
Top Legal Commentator Toobin Stands By Doomsday Prediction For Health Care Law
health care reform, obamacare, supreme court
Hindsight hasn't changed Jeffrey Toobin's mind.
A week after oral arguments led him to predict that the Supreme Court will strike down a key piece of President Obama's health care law, the legal commentator stands by his gloomy forecast, and explained his reasoning in full detail in an interview with TPM.
"I'm not wild about being so far out on a limb, but all I can do is call it the way I see it, and I did," Toobin said by telephone Monday evening.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Anthony Kennedy, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts
Health Care
Conservatives Struggle With Key Anti 'Obamacare' Argument
Justice Antonin Scalia
For the challengers' constitutional attack against the individual mandate in President Obama's health care law to withstand scrutiny, they need to maintain two key questionable arguments.
The first is the plaintiffs' claim that the law's mandate and the penalty enacted to enforce the mandate are fully distinct. Their challenge depends on the court viewing the mandate as a command, and not part of a more general incentive.
Relatedly, they claim that the command itself is meant to draw non-participants into a market they may not want to enter. For this to fly, they have to contend that the market the government is regulating -- or that Congress intended to regulate -- is the market for health insurance and not the much broader market for health care services.
This has become a central point of contention, and it could be an issue on which the court's decision turns. And yet squaring the challenger's argument with the history and purpose of the health care law presents opponents of the law with a question they've had a very hard time answering.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Antonin Scalia, Constitution, Donald Verrilli, Elena Kagan, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Paul Clement, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Wednesday's Supreme Court arguments over the fate of the president's health care law were defined by the same themes that marked the first two days: Liberal justices directed their toughest questions on the challengers, while conservative justices relished the opportunity to tie the administration's lawyers in logical knots.
That may seem unsurprising -- why wouldn't the same ideological divisions that have dogged the law for two years carry over into the high court, all the way through six hours of oral arguments?
But Wednesday's arguments weren't about the controversy at the center of the legal challenge -- can the government compel people to buy health insurance? They were about the court's discretion to interfere with the rest of the law, and a decades-long understanding of the relationship between the federal government and the states. Most legal observers assumed the issues at stake on Wednesday were no-brainers. So the fact that the conservative justices once again aligned -- at least rhetorically -- in sympathy with the challengers suggests just how tempted they are to swing for the ideological fences.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Medicaid
Health Care
After Rough Day In Court, An Optimistic View For Supporters Of 'Obamacare'
The snap reactions to today's Supreme Court arguments about the constitutionality of the health care law's individual mandate gave reform supporters a collective case of heartburn. The conservative justices seemed broadly hostile to the law's requirement that everyone carry health insurance. President Obama's Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, was widely panned by experienced court watchers for stumbling at key moments. Jeffery Toobin -- a seasoned vet of the high court -- called it a "train wreck" for the Obama administration.
Here's some antacid.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Anthony Kennedy, Constitution, Elena Kagan, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Walter Dellinger
Anthony Kennedy
Kennedy, Roberts Likely To Determine Fate Of 'Obamacare'
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy -- two critical swing votes in the health care reform case before the Supreme Court -- asked skeptical questions about the individual mandate Tuesday, but rounded out the arguments with some sympathy for the federal government's broad power to regulate health insurance.
With reform supporters battered by early analysis suggesting the court's conservatives were hostile to the health care law's requirement that Americans purchase health insurance, Roberts' and Kennedy's more balanced questions renewed hope that the law will be upheld.
Indeed, with the four justices comprising the court's liberal wing likely to uphold the mandate, the outcome seems destined to hinge on Kennedy and Roberts. And though the two conservatives didn't fully betray their leanings, the Obama administration and supporters of health care reform almost certainly only need one of their votes to prevail.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Anthony Kennedy, HCR/SCOTUS, John Roberts
Health Care
John Roberts May Have Tipped His Hand On 'Obamacare' Reasoning
In a little-noticed exchange Monday, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts may have tipped his hand that he's entertaining the possibility that the health care law's individual mandate can be upheld on a constitutional basis that's different from the one supporters and opponents have made central to their arguments.
For over a year now, observers and experts have assumed that the court's final decision will hinge on the extent of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices could also upend that conventional wisdom, and in a worrying sign for the plaintiffs on Monday, Roberts unexpectedly highlighted one way they could do that.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Taxes
Supreme Court
Justices Skeptical That Health Care Mandate Is A 'Tax'
The Supreme Court kicked off oral arguments over President Obama's health care law Monday by dedicating 90 minutes to the one issue on which the White House and the Republican challengers agree: The justices should hand down a speedy ruling on the constitutionality of the law this summer, rather than punt it to 2015 or beyond.
Lawyers for the Obama Justice Department and for the 26 Republican-led states challenging the law agreed that an old statute called the Anti-Injunction Act -- which forbids people from challenging taxes in court unless they've already been assessed by the government -- does not apply in this case. The Supreme Court enlisted outside counsel to make the opposite case.
The justices appeared broadly skeptical that the law's fine imposed on Americans who fail to carry health insurance qualifies as a "tax."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Antonin Scalia, Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, Constitution, Elena Kagan, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Health care lawsuits, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court
HCR/SCOTUS
What's In A Mandate? Why SCOTUS May Take A Pass On 'Obamacare' -- For Now
When the Supreme Court convenes next week to hear arguments about the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law, the first issue they will consider is the basic character of one of the law's crucial features: the requirement that uninsured Americans either purchase coverage or pay a fine to the federal government.
Better known as the individual mandate, it's the provision of the health care law at the heart of the GOP's constitutional complaint. The plaintiffs -- the 26 states suing over the law -- contend the individual mandate exceeds Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, and the court's ruling on that issue could have the most sweeping legal impact, perhaps upending decades of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
But before they get to the question of whether the individual mandate is an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause, the justices have agreed to consider whether they even have the power to take up this case, since the mandate does not go into effect for another two years. And that decision will ride on a fine distinction: Is the individual mandate a tax or is it a penalty?
The arguments they will hear, and the decision they ultimately reach, will determine whether the court can proceed to rule on the merits of the law, or whether they must punt on the substance until after the mandate takes effect in 2014. Either decision would place several key actors in awkward political predicaments without any easy escape routes.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Insurance, John Roberts, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare
Health Care
An Error By Dems May Allow The Lawsuit Against Health Care Reform To Succeed
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, (third from left), Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (center), Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (third from right) and others observe a moment of silence
Conservative foes of the Affordable Care Act want the federal courts to smother the new health care law in its crib. They've argued that Democrats failed to erect the proper safeguards to protect the legislation from being stricken down entirely by the courts. And when a Virginia district court judge rules in the coming days on the Constitutionality of the law's insurance mandate, he'll also have to decide whether none, some, or all of the law must go with it.
The obscure term of art here is "severability".
Quite often, legislators include what's known as a "severability clause" in their bills. These are meant to protect the bulk of a law in the event that a small portion of it is determined to be unconstitutional. That small portion must go, or be changed, but pretty much everything else is allowed to stand.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Bob McDonnell, Constitution, Health Care, Health Care Implementation, Health care lawsuits, John Roberts, Ken Cuccinelli, Supreme Court, Tea Party
Roundup
TPMDC Morning Roundup
Petraeus Leaves Room For Changes In Afghan Pullout
During his testimony Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. David Petraeus left open the possibility that he could recommend President Obama delay his plans for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan next summer. "There will be an assessment at the end of this year after which undoubtedly we'll make certain tweaks, refinements, perhaps some significant changes," said Petraeus.
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will receive the presidential daily briefing at 9:30 a.m. ET, and meet with senior advisers at 10 a.m. ET. He will depart the White House at 11 a.m. ET, and depart form Andrews Air Force Base at 11:15 a.m. ET, arriving at 1 p.m. ET in Racine, Wisconsin. He will hold a town hall meeting on the economy at 2:15 p.m. ET. He will depart from Racine at 4:15 p.m. ET, arriving at Andrews Air Force Base at 5:55 p.m. ET, and back at the White House at 6:10 p.m. ET.
Topics: 2010 elections, Afghanistan, Barack Obama, DCCC, Eric Cantor, Joe Biden, John Roberts, Roundup, Supreme Court, Supreme Court vacancy
