And SCOTUS says . . .

I am anxiously awaiting the announcement of the ACA decision.  I have multiple blog pages open and am hoping to catch the one that can give us the first glimpse of the Court's decision.

While we are waiting you can feel free to engage in idle speculation or discuss other things. 

What I dread most about the possible overturning of the law is not simply that it will undo a year's worth of agonizing work on the most difficult public policy issue of our time, but the thought of hearing those braying jackasses on the right engaging in triumphalism, while trying to paint the President, rather than the Court, as lawless. 

Be back in a bit. 

Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog says it survives as a tax.  Dianne Riehm just announced that they struck it down.  I hate this. 

Tom Goldstein just announced that the mandate survives and that Chief Justice Roberts joined the left of the Court in upholding it.  Very good news.  I will try to read and get a little more info.  

Goldstein just wrote the following:

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

Nice.

And still more from SCOTUS Blog:

The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

I want to see the opinion -- SCOTUS Blog seems to suggest that it is 5-4 with Roberts saving the day.  Miraculous really. 

Comments

[Paula B]

I'm betting it will be upheld.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Following this here and at SCOTUS Blog -- which has 'snaps, belt, suspenders, and a little glue' making sure it doesn't crash -- 6 geographically separated servers and other stuff. (Bloomberg Law is now sponsoring them, which helps.)

Also doing a little blog-hopping, may commen on that.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Interesting tie-in between two big stories. The firefighters working in Colorado are classified as 'temporary employees' of the Forest Service and don't receive benefits -- including health coverage. (Of all groups not to receive it...)

According to Sarah Kliff at Ezra's WaPo column(h/t Benen/Maddow):

“A lot of them are not making a lot,” says Bill Dougan, president of the National Federal of Federal Employees. “The only way they can afford insurance is if they have a spouse that might be able to get coverage under an employer. In some places that’s not an option.”

[snip]

The Affordable Care Act–if survives the Supreme Court Thursday–could help. It would guarantee access to health insurance for a firefighter who, for example, might have bronchitis. Many earn relatively low salaries, about $25,000 to $35,000 per year, meaning they would qualify for subsidies. If the law gets overturned, however, the firefighters stay in the same situation they’ve been in all along: Working a dangerous job and unable to afford coverage.

Lauer counts himself among the lucky ones on his crew; he has never had any serious health care needs. He skips out on preventive care, like regular check-ups, but hasn’t seen much harm. He’s looked at buying insurance but says it’s too expensive. Annual premiums for an individual policy hover around $2,777 in Colorado.

“It’s pretty pricey unless you can buy into a group policy,” he says.

The other guys on his crew have not been as lucky. Many are in their late 20s, and starting families. He’s a godfather to one of his coworker’s son, Rudy, who was born prematurely. He now has $70,000 in outstanding medical bills. Another friend is looking at $40,000 for some specialized tests on his newborn.

Checking in at SCOTUSBlog, but still running behind there. There is almost a certainty that Roberts is writing the opinion. What color and shape this gives the tea leaves is anybody's guess.

[Paula B]

See my comment at 9:13 a.m., not to rub it in anyone's face or anything.

[Crissa]

I'm thinking Roberts chose the tax reason because it was the simplest one. Basically, there's no real restriction on what they can put on your income taxes, is there? Because if there was, then nearly all the taxes and tax credits we have no would suddenly be unconstitutional.