Two legitimate sources now have suggested this.

I DON'T WANT TO GET MY HOPES UP!

Defense Dept. and wars.

Insurance companies are the only victors, otherwise.

that wont happen.

..when many of us think it will be another partisan ruling. I hope Sec'y Reich is correct.

usually trumps all with a crew like them. It usually takes a couple Dred Scott's and Plessey v Ferguesons before they get to a Brown v Board.

Our government (yes, every branch) has been bought and paid for by the 1%. Integrity has gone out the window, they're gonna dance to their master't tunes lest they be beaten down by those masters.


I'ts funny though, they think they are the ones with the power and freedom, yet they're more deeply enslaved than most of us.

If this SCOTUS was the least bit concerned with the public trust or standing in the public mind that would have manifested itself some time ago.

It may be upheld, but if so it probably won't be for that reason.

I hope I am wrong. I WANT to be wrong. But I don't think these bastards care about anything other than their ideology. Zealotry is never a good governing tool...it is a path to polarization and unrest...not a good thing for a democracy, really...

If it gave a damn about the law we would have had Pres. Gore instead of the rat.

the SCOTUS does not give a d*mn about the little folk pure and simple. I really wish it was pure and simple.

They like the mandate. They want the mandate. They will strike down the profit caps and everything that the health insurance companies ACTUALLY hate. But forcing more customers into their laps, they have ZERO problems with that.

Scalia is so angry. If that partisan ass had Health Care in his pocket, he wouldn't have blown up like he did the other day on SB1070.

He's pissed, and not JUST about immigration.

that will be SOOOOOO sweet if he gets his butt kicked again on health care.

That guy needs an attitude adjustment.

forced off the court.

No one can even pretend that Scalia is non-partisan.

He makes a mockery of what the Supreme Court is supposed to stand for.

temper tantrum in the cereal aisle at the grocery store. He seems SUPER pissed about something. His ego can't take it when he's unable to steer the court his particular way? Another manifestation of the republi-CON "Sore Loserman"? I don't know.

However, I am pessimistic about pretty much everything that comes out of this court anymore.

They are seated for life. What do they care?

Citizen's United told me all I needed to know about this crew.

exactly how much they care about the constitution, public trust, the public's will, or anything other than the 1%.

Everything shitty decision since then has just been window dressing.

The reason they will rule in favor of the ACA is because it locks in profits for private, for-profit corporations.

Sweet deal if you can get it.

Pathetic.

They'll eventually End Homelessness by Mandating Home Ownership!!!!1111

It will remain perfectly legal to, um, "mandate" that the homeless PURCHASE food, natch.

to strike down the mandate and go against their coporate overloads.

as we know they will? You think that Roberts and Kennedy are in the pocket of the corporations, and Scalia and Thomas aren't? We don't see many Scalia defenders on this board.

there are other factors. Court justices, unlike Congresspeople and senators, don't need to collect funding for reelection. Some of the Republicans are near retirement and may be more concerned about shaping the nation's future the way they want to see it than about doing favors for corporations.

Best outcome would be to dump the mandate but keep most of the rest. I hope they can find a way to do that.

There is no penalty for refusing to purchase, so how can this really be called a mandate? It is nothing but a mirage and that is why it has ended up at the Extreme Court. More than one federal judge has ruled there simply is no mandate because there is no penalty for refusing to purchase..Those decisions have been appealed and here we are...

See http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Court-upholds-individual-mandate-in-health-care-3670019.php

It is predictable as hell.

I don't see them backtracking.

And limits bad behavior. why do you not acknowledge that?

But I sincerely doubt Roberts gives a rat's ass for the reputation of the Court.

I personally think he would just love to preside over a decision as unpopular as Bush v. Gore. It would show that he is not one of the "little people". It would win the favor of the multinationals whom he and his fellow four right wingers worship as some kind of modern day pantheon of gods.

the SCOTUS worries about public trust. Why? What can the public do to them? He totally lost me. He makes it sound like the poor, poor weak SCOTUS. They can overrule decades of precedence and carve up legislation that comes before, them to satisfy their own ideologies. Once they have ruled, it takes a Constitutional amendment to override them.

I firmly believe the Roberts is a sociopath and wont give a shite about "public trust".

book to see it kind of happens A LOT.

where revolution produced democracy.

would vote to uphold the mandate. As far as why Roberts voted as he did, I stand by my statement that he is a sociopath and doesnt give a shite about the public trust. I concede that some agree with Reich, but I just cant.

a good judge. Those Right Wing justices are sent there to do RW work (be activists for RW policy).

no desire to impeach.

The SCOTUS has lost credibility during the past several years. Many think they are just as political as Congress. A vote by some of "conserva-judges" to uphold ACA would show the public they can vote against their own party for the good of the nation.

I wouldnt bet on it but it is very possible. We shall see.

critics say. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if they are not taking their marching orders straight from the Vatican---and a few major corporations.

Tony & Ratzi make an interesting pair.

than I can throw him...

I hope that Reich is right, but Roberts is just as partisan 'non-partisan' as the other's of 'the 5'

And they've done absolutely nothing to change my mind since then. This is why we need a Democratic Presidency and Congress in 2013, in hopes we can purge the right-wing fucks from the court with two more liberal-leaning or at least moderate to liberal justices. In other words, "justices" who aren't owned by the Republicans.

but NOT for the reasons cited by Robert Reich.

The Mandate WILL be upheld because

* it establishes For Profit Corporations as the only Gateway
to Health Care in the USA,

*It Mandates a PROFIT for this completely parasitic Industry that
Manufactures NOTHING
Produces NO Wealth,
and Provides NO Service...
Money For NOTHING

*the ACA opens the door to the Public Treasury for these For Profit Corporations.
The much vaunted "subsidies for the Poor" are actually a Gravy Train Funnel of $BILLIONS of Taxpayer Dollars straight into the pockets of the 1% as they get a mandated Skim-Off-The Top....FOR NOTHING.

*any "historic regulations" will be easily avoided much like the Wall Street Banks
avoided the "sweeping regulations" imposed on them.

In short,
the Mandate WILL be upheld simply because it is GOOD for Corporate America.

Justice Roberts couldn't care less about how the SC appears.
His ONLY concern is strengthening the death hold the 1% have on the 99%,
and for THAT he will be well rewarded.

The LAST thing this country needs is MORE Welfare for Rich Corporations.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

The Supreme Court will either uphold the entire thing (because it benefits insurance companies) or else they have to trash the entire thing (because it benefits insurance companies) Either way their ruling is influenced by money not public perception.

...AKA "Reagan Democrats" who are wealthy enough to afford decent Health Insurance,
and believe that if they force The Poor and the Healthy to buy Insurance,
their premiums might go down.

They have completely subscribed to the Conservative Reagan Ideology that the people who can't buy Health Insurance are the problem,
and not the monolithic, exempt from Anti-Trust, completely parasitic Health Insurance Industry.

Its that old "Personal Responsibility/Welfare Cadillac" bullshit repackaged into a different bag.

Hate the Poor.
Hate the Hippies.
Hate the "Fringe Left".

Its hard for me to believe too,
but they are here,
AND running the Democratic Party.

Just diving their Caddies up to the ER and getting unlimited top-quality free health care subsidized by the poor helpless insurance companies.

by the one percent in recent memory. It is an absolutely perfect example of how owning both parties allows the one percent to play them against each other to pass legislation that neither party would have accepted had it been presented honestly.

The fired up one side with the promise of universal healthcare, and they fired up the other side with the fear of government-controlled healthcare, and then they passed a "compromise" that favored neither but just happens to be a corporate wet dream: an unprecedented mandate for EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN to buy an outrageously overpriced corporate product FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

I remember watching the corporate shills hawking this around the time of the vote. One of them noted the polls showing that Republicans hated it and that Democrats hated it and said (I am not making this up), "This shows they must be charting a good middle course."

Good god.

The "Affordable Care Act" is perhaps the most ironically named contribution to the growing corporate state yet; Orwell would be impressed. Its entire purpose is to entrench the predatory, for-profit companies into our health system and ensure that not a single American, from birth to death, will be able to avoid these bloodsucking middlemen.

-Laelth

I would insert one clause.
Where you said:
[font color=blue]"....an unprecedented mandate for EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN to buy an outrageously overpriced corporate product FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES."[/font]

I would add:
....an unprecedented mandate for EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN to buy an outrageously overpriced [font size=3]INVISIBLE[/font] corporate product [font size=3]EVERY SINGLE YEAR[/font] FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.


This is public money destroyed... thrown away...wasted on parasites.
The American Taxpayer will own absolutely NO useful product after their money is spent,
and our Commons will NOT benefit from any tangible gains.

Wait until the photos of the Health Insurance Execs with their new Jets, Yachts, and Summer Homes start appearing after the Mandate kicks in.

That is the most important point of all. We get NOTHING from them. It is legislated, mandated submission to theft.

I wish you would post your full argument again as an OP. Your summaries of this utter SCAM are the very best I have seen.

God, this country needs to wake up.

All the rest is garbage propaganda.

Wake the hell up, America.

A narrow hole, as is typical of the court.

A hole just big enough to make their decision as frustrating as a nonspecific glandular problem.

All the liberal "friends'" briefs support its constitutionality.

Right wing "friends" include the CATO Institute, ALEC, Boehner and Paul. On the left "friends" include the NAACP, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and Health Care for All.

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

Brief of the Department of Health and Human Services et al. regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Department of Health and Human Services et al. regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Reply Brief for the Petitioners on the Anti-Injunction Act

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners

Brief for AARP
Brief for American Nurses Association et al.
Brief for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Brief for Constitutional Law and Economics Professors
Brief for 104 Health Law Professors
Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars
Brief for Child Advocacy Organizations
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. et al.
Brief for the California Endowment
Brief for the National Women’s Law Center et al.
Brief for Prescription Policy Choices et al.
Brief for the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action et al.
Brief for Health Care For All et al.
Brief for California Public Employees Retirement System
Brief for Law Professors Barry Friedman et al.
Brief for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, et al,
Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates
Brief for Department of Health and Human Services et al.
Brief for the Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire
Brief for Health Care Policy History Scholars
Brief for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid et al.
Brief for Small Business Majority Foundation, INC and the Main Street Alliance
Brief for State Legislators
Brief for the States of Maryland et al.
Brief for Service Employees International Union and Change to Win
Brief for Economic Scholars
Brief for the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations

Merits Briefs for the Respondents

Brief for the State Respondents on the Anit-Injunction Act
Brief for Private Respondents on the Anti-Injunction Act
Brief for the State Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Private Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Reply Brief for State Respondents on the Anti-Injunction Act

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Respondents

Brief for Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
Brief for the Cato Institute et al.
Brief for Association of American Physicians And Surgeons, inc., and Individual Physicians
Brief for Judicial Watch, Inc.
Brief for American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice et al.
Brief for the American Legislative Exchange Council
Brief for American College of Pediatricians et al.
Brief for the American Civil Rights Union et al.
Brief for the Cato Institute
Brief for Gary Lawson et al.
Brief for the Catholic Vote and Steven J. Willis
Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence et al.
Brief for Citizens and Legislators in the Fourteen Health Care Freedom States
Brief for Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
Brief for the Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli
Brief for Docs4patientcare et al.
Brief for Employer Solutions Staffing Group
Brief for Egon Mittelmann, Esq.
Brief for Former U.S. Department Officials
Brief for the Foundation for Moral Law
Brief for HSA Coalition, Inc. and the Constitution Defense Fund
Brief for John Boehner
Brief for the Landmark Legal Foundation
Brief for Liberty Legal Foundation
Brief for Members of the United States Senate
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation
Brief for Oklahoma
Brief for Partnership for America
Brief for the Rutherford Institute
Brief for Senator Rand Paul
Brief for Stephen M. Trattner
Brief for the Thomas More Law Center et al.
Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall et al.
Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation and Constitutional Law Scholars
Brief for Authors of Origins of The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Independence Institute
Brief for Economists
Brief for the Independent Women’s Forum
Brief for the Tax Foundation
Brief for the Missouri Attorney General
Brief for Montana Shooting Sports Association
Brief for the American Life League
Brief for the Caesar Rodney Institute
Brief for Liberty University, Inc. et al.
Brief for Project Liberty

Amicus Briefs Supporting Neither Party

Brief for the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati regarding minimum coverage

Merits Briefs for Court-Appointed Amicus regarding the Anti-Injunction Act

Brief supporting vacatur

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Court- Appointed Amicus

Brief for Tax Law Professors
Brief for Mortimer Caplin and Sheldon Cohen

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Respondent regarding the Anti-Injunction Act

Brief for the Liberty University, Inc. et al.
Brief for the Cato Institute
Brief for the American Center for Law & Justice
Brief for Center for the Fair Administration of Taxes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002475335

at least the ones on the right have.

They'll either strike down the ACA, major parts of it, but most likely the mandate.

If Robert's would let his vote be swayed by a desire for the Court to stand in good stead with the public or for his own reputation would diminish my faith in the Court ever further. As vile as I see the current Court I would prefer to think it is one driven by ideology rather than popular politics, I'd rather have a lunatic-Court than a scoundrel-Court.

I don't....they will vote what they have been paid

Once they get their mandated money, they'll bribe - er, lobby - congress until they eliminate every reform in the bill. In the end, they will collect money and pay out very little.

It's a no-brainer.

We need Medicare for all - I hope the mandate goes down in flames. The rest of the bill is OK, though.

You know, a kind of "heeey, look, we did this, sooo...."

And I think they'll offer another one here, keeping bits of it but tossing out the mandate, not because they necessarily believe that it's unconstitutional, but because they KNOW that that will be the buzzword. Obama "overreached", Obama "violated the constitution" and so on and so forth.

The 'justices' know what the masses, for whom nuance is not a strong point, will get bludgeoned with and consequently take from this debacle, all while absolving themselves of the accusation that they're partisan hackfucks by retaining a few bits of offal.

He might have flipped his lid about the immigration decision because of his anger about what he knows to be the ACA decision.

If it happens, I sure hope somebody dusts off that overused Hitler video about the ACA being upheld.

If he is not, many will die.

but look what they just told Montana

Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate campaign contributions

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/now-with-alex-wagner/47950237/

Shows how much they care about our opinion.
Reich may have jumped the gun.

That's all the Supreme Corporation of the United States cares about.

law or the Constitution. It's evident from their decisions.

But if Reich actually thinks this Supreme Court cares about looking corrupt, he's naive. They obviously don't, and have repeatedly demonstrated that fact.

Supposed to care whether their decisions are popular.or not. They are supposed to rule on the constitution and the letter of the law. Public opinion is not supposed to be a factor... it protects us from the tyranny of the populace...

I doubt any of the conservative justices, and even a few of the liberal ones, give a crap about the Court's public standing.

And theyre rarely wrong.

I'm thinking some clerks tipped the bloggers off as to what the ruling will be I could be wrong but that's my take

And hope the Supreme Court makes it the next move!

Seriously, if this Court is willing to ignore decades of case law regarding the expansive nature of the commerce clause, why do you think this court would find that single payer is okay? If this Court is willing to knock down the Healthcare Reform, then single payer is just as likely DOA with this Court. I can easily imagine Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas knocking down Single Payer on commerce clause and state soveriegnty grounds. Look at Scalia's dissent in the Arizona case.

He is there to do the bidding of the right wing lunatics.

I hope I am wrong.

I've read quite a few threads here and on other sites/forums about how insurance companies love the ACA and how great it will be for corporate America. What I don't get it this:

1. The ACA mandates that insurance companies only use 20% of people's premiums for overhead and the other 80% HAS to be used for healthcare. If the law is upheld, they will owe BILLIONS in refunds to those they insurance in the coming months.
2. It has been discovered that while the insurance industry was pretending to like "Obamacare," they were secretly spending HUGE sums ($102.4 million in 15 months) to convince Americans it was a bad deal.

[link:http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/exclusive-ahip-gave-more-than.php|

3. If if is so good for corporate America, why are the Republicans trying to defeat it to begin with?

It seems to me that it's going to cap their profits and make them have to be insanely competitive to have to vie for every single Americans' business and therefore it's NOT so good for insurance companies at all.

What am I missing?

The companies fear ACA. They understand that the mandate could be converted to single payer.

Kennedy might... might vote in favor of ACA on legal grounds. Might.

Roberts won't. Not a chance in hell. He is balancing the partisan hatred of Obama against the desire to support the corporations that want this bill to remain in place. Those are the considerations for him. Actual law, precedent, public trust, none of that is a factor. Same for the other conservatives on the court.

I don't know what will come out tomorrow. I wouldn't be overly surprised if they managed to cobble together a ruling that preserves the individual mandate, while getting rid of the rest of the bill. It seems like something this activist court would do.

...what with all those heads exploding at the same time

He has had two seizures since he was appointed. Technically it takes two seizures to get a diagnosis of Epilepsy. Occasionally such events inspire empathy.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1648384,00.html

I think Roberts gives even less of a shit about the SCOTUS's public image than Scalia and Thomas do about the law.

Just as we knew from the outset that the debt ceiling debate would end in extension of the tax cuts for billionaires and austerity for the rest of us...

All of this is predictable as hell by now. If the fact that ROBERTS voted for this does not extract some heads from some asses to see what is really going on here, then there is little hope for us.

They still don't get it, that this was just another blow job for the corporations.

We have told them for months they would uphold it and why, but now the meme is "Roberts really cares about the dignity of the court" or something. They don't even laugh when they say it.

They could simply look at the evidence, but since the Heritage Foundation Annex of our party backed the theft, they think it is some kind of "glorious victory".

"Roberts cares about the dignity of the court."

Good. Fucking. God.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626

...not because of any legal or Constitutional issues, but because the mega insurance companies are thrilled with it. Their profits have tripled since the healthcare bill was signed. The bill left their profit-centric system in place. We still live and die based on what's best for health-insurance's shareholder value. There are no cost controls in that bill.

Our Supreme Court is owned by the corporations. The corporations love this bill. So, it will stand.

And a nice little bonus in this situation is that Republicans, especially the rabid base, will be whipped up into a lather of rage and paranoia after "socialized medicine" is not brought down. Republican voters will view the presidential election as their only hope in repealing "Obamacare"--which they've been duped into believing is a Marxist attack on our nation.

Right-wing-talk-show hosts will be poring gasoline on their Obama-hatred fires and creating chaos. They'll have their listeners convinced that the world will implode if Obamacare isn't repealed. They'll be told the only way to save the country from a Marxist-Socialist-Kenyan takeover is by voting for Mittens.

All of this ensures a tighter presidential race.

Yeah. That's how cynical I've become.

You were right.

and a scumfuck to the core. Would not put it past them to overturn the whole law. I think the most likely outcome, though, is that the mandate gets overturned and the rest gets left alone.

Alito has telegraphed that he's in the mood to expand government power lately. I expect him to join the Chief Justice. Only Scalia and Thomas will dissent, I suspect.

I hate it when I agree with Scalia and Thomas, but that's exactly what the Democratic Party has forced me to do by backing a Heritage Foundation plan from the 1990s.

Sad.

-Laelth

No surprise he was a Rhodes Scholar in the same class as Bill Clinton.