Wow, talk about a garbage "news" network. How can you run an incorrect headline? CNN has lost all credibility with me.

According to USA Today...Mandate was upheld

ha ha now the cnn headline says SC upholds all parts of the bill, which is not the case either.

 

"Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama’s signature health care law. "

Can't wait to read this opinion. Not only did Roberts break with the conservatives, he wrote the opinion. Should be a fascinating read; and Roberts typically writes with perfect succinctness. I hope Scalia wrote the dissent.

ha ha now the cnn headline says SC upholds all parts of the bill, which is not the case either.

 

"Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama’s signature health care law. "

 

Yep, they're an absolute joke.

Yahoo says the vote was 6-3, cnn 5-4, abc news 5-4, fox news doesnt even have anything on the vote. lol

Early summary is that it's not a complete victory for the President.

 

Sounds like states can still opt out of expanding their medicare rolls without penalty. Not sure what impact that has on the entirety of the act.

Key section on upholding 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."

 

Roberts wrote the majority opinion in which the mandate is upheld as a tax and so falls within Congress' taxing power. The other four in the majority also believe it can be upheld under the Commerce Clause. Roberts does not agree here and Ginsburgh's concurrence on the Commerce Clause is not controlling.

Regardless of what you wanted from the vote one positive(a big one to me) is that the individual justices placed their interpretation of the law above their natural political leanings. We often hear about the importance of the justices that are put on the court by each POTUS and the one that wrote this historic opinion for the mandate was one put on by President Bush.

Key section on upholding 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."

 

Roberts wrote the majority opinion in which the mandate is upheld as a tax and so falls within Congress' taxing power. The other four in the majority also believe it can be upheld under the Commerce Clause. Roberts does not agree here and Ginsburgh's concurrence on the Commerce Clause is not controlling.

 

The "tax" aspect is interesting since it was always said by President's supporters that it wasn't a tax yet it got through and around the Commerce Clause because it was , indeed, a tax.

Regardless of what you wanted from the vote one positive(a big one to me) is that the individual justices placed their interpretation of the law above their natural political leanings. We often hear about the importance of the justices that are put on the court by each POTUS and the one that wrote this historic opinion for the mandate was one put on by President Bush.

 

It was a partisan-line vote except for Roberts.

 

It's curious that Roberts went with the liberals. Kennedy's dissent says the dissenters hold the entire law is unconstitutional. I wonder if that was too extreme for Roberts, so he opted to write the opinion, where he could write a narrow one, instead. He was the only one of the majority to not hold that the law was valid through the Commerce Clause. Small victory in a way, might pave the way for future conservative victories.

Early summary is that it's not a complete victory for the President.

 

Sounds like states can still opt out of expanding their medicare rolls without penalty. Not sure what impact that has on the entirety of the act.

 

This issue seems to be the biggest issue the administration will have to address.

It was a partisan-line vote except for Roberts.

 

Exactly.

Rick Newman ‏@rickjnewman

#CNN provides more clarity when reporting from the middle of a war zone, at night, in fog

The decision is very complex. I'd be hesitant to put 100% faith in early reports by media and comments from politicians.