Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
Has anybody considered that the Act is over 2100 pages long, which most Congressional members admit that they haven't read! They don't know what is says. Therefore they can't really put together a very effective auspice to implement and enforce the law.
Is it really healthy to pass laws and not know what the hell they say?
So. Without even reading this conversation, I'm guessing it's gone something like the following:
-Liberals come in and triumph that sanity, logic, and common sense have prevailed for once.
-Conservatives come in and say that Big Government has yet again defended Big Government.
-Ensuing constitutional debate breaks out.
-Liberals ask conservatives if they are okay with millions being uninsured.
-Conservatives dodge the question and claim that the Affordable Care Act, which they affectionately refer to as "Obamacare," will destroy America as we know it.
-Ensuing economics debate breaks out.
-Liberals point out that the Affordable Care Act is very similar to the health care plan that Romney signed into law.
-Conservatives counter that with their explanations.
-Things get heated. Real heated. (As evidenced by the FIVE, count 'em, FIVE thread warnings.)
In no particular order, of course.
I'm sure this will get lost amongst the thousands of post in this thread, but here's something about the ruling I don't think people have yet to catch on to.
Where the Anti-Injunction Act applies, if you listened to oral arguments you'd know that the SC asked who would be responsible for enforcing the law should an individual bring suit against the PPACA once he has to pay the tax penalty. The Justices all argued that such a matter really should be handled by the tax courts, but felt strongly that such suits would fall on the SC. None wanted to take on such litigation fearing that a constant stream of such suits would only bog down the SC. Justice Robert's ruling, therefore, accomplished three things:
1) It ensured that the SC did not appear partisan. Consider for a moment how deep "one-party rule" runs within the Republican party - state legislatures, state Governors, the House of Rep and a slight under representation in the Senate and the presumptive Conservative SC. If you view this as an unprecedented power grab by a single party and then recall how obstructionist the Republican party has been these last 3 years, Justice Roberts essentially saved his party from a massive public outcry.
2) Removed the argument that the Liberals would continue to lean on the commerce clause to change or implement laws through the SC as they saw fit. Considering that no opinion favored the individual mandate through the prism of the commerce clause, Justice Robert rendered this argument null and void.
3) Removed any chance of a suit coming before the SC by individuals making the claim that they have been harmed by paying the tax penalty from the health care law. And if such a suit does find its way into the federal judicial system, it will be stopped and adjudicated in fededal tax court, not the Supreme Court.
Bottom Line: Justice Roberts "found" a get-out-of-legalism free card for his party. You may hate his ruling and disagree with his opinion, but I'm convinced that high powered Conservatives are privately giving him high-5's.