BREAKING: 7-2 Supreme Court dismisses Obamacare challenge

[superpatriotman]

Per CNN

The Attorneys General (r) have NO STANDING.

Roberts, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Coney-Barrett stand with liberals

Alito and Gorsuch show their corporate colors.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/politics/supreme-court-affordable-care-act-obamacare/index.html

I thought this was poignant and representative of our politics in 2021:

The justices noted that there is no harm to opponents from the provisions that they are challenging because Congress has reduced the penalty for failing to buy health insurance to zero.

[Tomconroy]

1. YES! Now it is safe for the Ages!

[Hortensis]

17. Afraid not. "avoided deciding whether the ACA as revised is constitutional..."

That's huge.

The hard-core conservatives behind much of what's happening have been getting more and more originalists and textualists onto SCOTUS. Those approaches typically claim there is no constitutional authority for the government to establish the big social programs of and after the New Deal, including Social Security, Medicare, and of course the ACA. They're all illicit.

In addition they also argue there's no constitutional basis for decisions like the people's "right to privacy" from government interference in their lives. From that we get the rights to possess and use contraception, to abortion, an open internet and much, much more.

I believe there's very little intellectual basis for originalism or textualism, that they're both dishonest conservative constructs to undo the liberalism and progressivism intrinsic to the constitution and over 200 years of interpretations. Many powers on the right have always been determined to do that and to reinterpret the constitution as the framers never intended.

And I suspect their political-agent justices are holding back on tipping their hand while we can still stop them.

[Tomconroy]

27. The court ruled that neither an individual

Nor a state could demonstrate that they were harmed by lowering the tax penalty mandate to zero. They are effectively saying that no person or entity has standing to raise the underlying constitutional issues. It's over. We won.

[Hortensis]

33. You're not going nearly underlying enough. Check out the

general welfare clause and how liberal justices interpreted it to provide a constitutional basis for the New Deal programs even though nothing like them is actually addressed in the constitution.

As for the "right to privacy," aka "right to be left alone," check out Griswold v Connecticut (and its "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" ) brought after Connecticut made contraception illegal. Its rationale is even more of a pieced creation regarded officially with contempt by those determined to look only at the original words and meaning and not the meaningful application of their intent centuries later.

It's been a huge controversy and cause for conservative opponents ever since. They very strongly disagree with cobbling together notions merely inferred from what is actually written in various spots in the constitution to construct the phony rationales we used to wrongly impose liberal ideology on the nation.

Doctrines of "textualism" and "originalism" have been developed on the right make their case for cleaning out the liberal corruption. They have enough far-right justices now, but they still need an electorate too disempowered to stop them.

[fescuerescue]

58. No right to privacy

yea. That won't backfire at all.

[Hortensis]

60. :) Yea! Connecticut decided in the 1960s to enforce an 1800s law

making contraception illegal. Just think of all the extremist laws that are on the books in the states, many passed in this century by archconservative legislators eager to persecute those who don't conform to their beliefs.

[Calista241]

21. Nah, they just ruled that the plaintiffs in this case didn't have standing.

I'm sure they'll come up with another lawsuit to try.

[StarfishSaver]

22. I doubt it

The Court just made it very difficult for anyone to prove standing in any future challenges of ACA.

[Demsrule86]

28. They already ruled it constitutional. This should send a message to the GOP ...

forget about it.

[Calista241]

31. The Voting Rights Act had 50 years of government policies and legal rulings based upon it

before part of it was ruled unconstitutional.

In some ways, I suspect you're correct, the ACA will stand now, but parts of it will always be fought over in the courts.

[Demsrule86]

51. The voting rights act was not ruled constitution like the ACA...we should rejoice in our victories.

You could say the same thing about social security...but it is still here.

[Calista241]

55. The ACA doesn't have a "Constitutional" label either.

This particular case just said the plaintiffs didn't have standing. The Supreme Court has ruled on parts of the ACA three times, with this current case being the last one.

The first SCOTUS case against the ACA said that the fee was really a tax, and that 'fee' was not ruled unconstitutional. They also said the Federal Gov't couldn't 'force' the states to take the medicaid expansion.

The second SCOTUS case against the ACA was the Hobby Lobby case, and it ruled the ACA couldn't force coverage for certain conditions / drugs upon religious organizations.

The third SCOTUS case didn't make any legal ruling. All the court said was that Texas (and 19 other states) didn't have standing to challenge the law when Trump repealed both the tax and penalties associated with the ACA. The premise of the case was that because all the ways to pay for it and the penalties associated with not having insurance were defunct, that the entire ACA should be struck. The court didn't actually rule on this, so we don't know what will happen if someone who does have standing makes the same argument.

Other parts of the law can still be and probably will be challenged.

[SoonerPride]

2. I must say I am shocked by this

[Voltaire2]

3. just a nit-pick re - 'corporate colors'

the big corporations, the ones who donate huge amounts of money to candidates, have no problem with the ACA. It is the fascist wing of the republican party, which is now distinct from the corporate wing of the party, that hates it.

[Xipe Totec]

12. Insurance corporations

[ProfessorGAC]

29. You Sure? I Haven't Heard That

Absent COVID costs, insurance companies have been making record profits for 10 years.
Premiums still exceed costs to provide & their cash flow has been such that they're lending record amounts of money for capital projects and short term line of credit (SLOC) loans to manufacturing concerns.
I don't see why they would be against it if they're prospering with the law in place.

[Voltaire2]

36. indeed. It bakes in their profits. What's not to love?

[Xipe Totec]

42. This:

MON, APR 27 2020

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the government has to pay a $12 billion debt owed to insurance companies that participated in a program that existed in the first years of the Affordable Care Act, the health-care overhaul law known as Obamacare.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/27/supreme-court-sides-with-insurers-in-12-billion-obamacare-case.html

That's why the record profits.

[Xipe Totec]

43. You need to look at the history

Although the insurers stood to gain financially from a law that would require Americans to buy coverage from them, many Wall Street financial analysts and investors worried that some provisions of the law might cut into insurers’ profit margins.

Analysts and investors in particular didn’t like the section of the law that would require insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenues on health care. Before the law, many insurers routinely spent 60 percent or less of their revenues on patient care. The less spent on care, the more available to reward shareholders.

Wall Street also didn’t like the provision that would have created a government-run public option to compete with commercial insurers, and they didn’t think the penalties on Americans who refused to buy coverage were harsh enough.

Partly because of the anti-reform advertising blitz insurers financed in late 2009 and early 2010, Congress capitulated and gave up on the public option. And lawmakers agreed to make the penalty for not buying insurance more painful with every passing year.

But despite the worry, it turns out that the law the insurance industry’s shills demonized has been awfully good to insurance company investors.

https://publicintegrity.org/health/insurers-backed-obamacare-then-undermined-it-now-theyre-profiting-from-it/

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Your Last Paragraph

You're reinforcing my point.
I'm not talking about 11 years ago. 11 years ago, I can certainly see your point.
There's no reason at this point, other than hyperpartisan blather, for corporations to not be in favor of the standing law.
Insurance companies, in particular.

[Xipe Totec]

46. The suit was filed in 2017, four years ago

You can't argue backwards from the outcome. Just because the insurance companies managed to end up on top, doesn't mean they weren't fighting the law tooth and nail all the way. Sure, they're guaranteed a nice profit, but they were getting an even bigger profit before, so they perceived this as a net loss.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. But, They Didn't

They continued to make record profits until COVID hit.
I said I bought your point. It was also alarmist nonsense back then by the companies & investors. It didn't make microeconomic sense.
Did some see smaller net income margins? Yes.
Did they see growth in absolute net income? Yes.
Calling that a net loss is a trick short term thinking analysts have convinced executives is real.
Net income going up is not a loss of any type, despite the semantic gymnastics they employ.

[hlthe2b]

4. Thomas????? Shocker!

[superpatriotman]

5. I guess it's the broken clock theory IRL

Nt

[Bucky]

56. No. That's not how Thomas works

He's one of the most blatantly political justices in our history. If he voted to turn down the appeal, it's because someone at the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, or some other Koch-fueled sock puppet told him to.

Either they perceived a fatal flaw in the substance of the appeal arguments, figured they didn't have five certain votes, or (most likely) didn't want to hand the Democrats this as an issue before the 2022 elections.

Sometimes the velociraptor doesn't strike because it isn't hungry. Usually it doesn't strike because it smells bigger meal around the corner

[jcgoldie]

13. No kidding

What happened he fell asleep and forgot what side he was supposed to be on?

[SergeStorms]

32. Since Scalia died....

he just flips a coin. Up until then Scalia told him how to rule on everything. Now it's just shit luck.

[Bucky]

57. I wouldn't worry about Clarence not having friends

The Federalist Society has dozens of people advising Clarence Thomas how he's supposed to vote. They regard him and Brett Kavanaugh and what's her face, the new one, as the hired help. As long as they they reward them with speaking fees, they're dependable little sock puppets. But these big firm right-wing lawyers would never want to be on the court themselves. It's literally a death sentence and none of these shysters would be willing to take the cut in pay

[DrToast]

6. This could be finally it

You hardly hear Republicans talking about repealing it anymore. They've kind of moved on, it seems.

Now it's all about building the wall and racism, etc.

[zuul]

7. Those guys at The Federalist must be wondering why they bought a

Supreme Court Justice if he won't vote as they direct.

Never thought Brett KEG-anaugh would be a no vote.

[lark]

9. The Handmaiden vote is what shocks me the most.

I know she will kill us on abortion if she can, and I hate her for it in advance, but she is not the 100% destructomat I thought she would be on other matters. She still shouldn't be there, though.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. You Said It!

That was a shocker to me, too.
Maybe knowing it wasn't a deciding vote, she decided to save her radicalism for later.

[Cha]

35. The Psycho must be

beyond Pissed!

[lagomorph777]

14. Bratt Keggerballs

Thanks for the inspiration!

[geardaddy]

20. Frat KeggerDraught

[calimary]

24. Both of these are great!

Got some wicked clever DUers here! Both lagomorph777 And geardaddy!

[geardaddy]

25. Thanks!

[geardaddy]

26. I love this.

[Bucky]

59. If we're all done coming up with clever insulting twists on their names...

... may I point out that the Heritage Society and the Federalist Society in the sundry insurance corporations who want to kill the Affordable Care Act simply didn't want to hand the Democrats "saving Obamacare" as a campaign issue next year, which is why SCOTUS chose not to rule on the ACA's constitutionality at this time, rather than upholding it. Particularly when there's still the mumbling going on about Democrats expanding the court to 11 or 13 judges.

This isn't a win for progress; this is a tactical readjustment for hard right conservatives

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. yeah

[Jose Garcia]

10. Corporate colors? Health insurance company lobbyists helped draft it.

[Initech]

11. How did the former guy's plan to "repeal and replace with something better" go?

Oh right...

Seriously, how many times are they going to keep beating this dead horse?

[Martin68]

15. I love the irony that the GOP blocked one route to challenging the law.

[NCjack]

16. I believe that Trump helped secure this victory by promising a replacement plan

and never delivering it. Even a crappy plan may have had a chance with Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett.

[Turbineguy]

18. Those who love to see others suffer

will has a sad.

[hunter]

19. Obamacare saved the health insurance industry from themselves.

It postponed more radical solutions that would have severely restricted the money streams they now control.

Effective appropriate medical care for everyone wouldn't pay for mansions and multiple vacation homes, private jets, and pet congress people.

If we measured the effectiveness of medicine in terms of positive outcomes rather than profit there would be much less money flowing through the system.

Overall, health care in the U.S.A. isn't good, even for people who have "platinum" insurance and millions of dollars in the bank.

There are plenty of dead celebrities and wealthy people who might still be alive if they'd pretended to be homeless and sought care at the local free clinic instead of trusting profit driven health care providers and celebrity physicians.

[Blue Owl]

23. K&R

[budkin]

34. Coney-Barrett was in support??

OMFG

[ShazzieB]

39. I know, right?

But tbh, Thomas surprised me even more. Reading about his vote was definitely a "Was that sound I just heard hell freezing over?" moment!

[Midnight Writer]

37. Good news. This is a great relief to me. I have been sweating this one.

[jalan48]

38. The ACA benefits big insurance corporations. Of course the Scotus will support it. If this were a

challenge to a government single payer program the result would likely be different.

[Elessar Zappa]

44. Whatever the motivation,

thank dog they ruled as they did. A lot of people, including myself, have been saved by the ACA.

[jalan48]

49. Absolutely. That's where we're at today.

[druidity33]

50. Exactly. Check out their other opinion today...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-has-carved-out-one-religious-exemption-after-another-the-next-may-be-a-blow-to-lgbtq-rights/

"UPDATE (June 17, 2021, 10:59 a.m.): On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that Philadelphia’s requirement that Catholic Social Services abide by the city’s nondiscrimination policy regarding same-sex couples violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion. The majority opinion ruled narrowly, avoiding the question of whether to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith. This piece from Monday outlines what was at stake in the case.

Over the past few decades, particularly this one, the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly lent a sympathetic ear to those who say their religious beliefs are being trampled on, carving out one religious exemption after another to the First Amendment. Now, the court is poised to take another giant leap this term, possibly delivering the religious right another major victory in its recurring face-off with LGBTQ equality. The religious right has already won a number of other cases in the past few years:"

...more at link.

[jalan48]

52. It's hard to cheer for a program that funnels billions of taxpayer dollars to middle men.

[BigmanPigman]

40. Woohoooooooo!!!!!!

I have had a post-it staring at me since Nov. 10th when they said SCOTUS would decide in June.

[WarGamer]

41. I predicted this right here on DU.

I just got the TWO NO VOTES wrong.

I said it'd be Alito and Thomas.

[Mad_Machine76]

48. Great

Dumbest lawsuit ever. Hopefully, this is last bite at the Repeal Obamacare apple?

[Demsrule86]

53. Tired of hearing this shit. My husband stayed with a shitty job for more than a decade

because of pre-existing conditions. Right now, he has changed jobs and is on the ACA. I thank God for it. And I shudder to think what would happen if Trump had been in complete charge of our health care. The ACA is a miracle and it has saved probably millions of lives by now including my oldest daughter's. Single-payer was not something we could get then and probably not now. More countries have what we have with strict regulation than have single-payer you know. This includes Germany, France, Switzerland to name several. I am thrilled that the ACA survived the lawsuit because had it not, millions would have nothing tonight including my family.

[bucolic_frolic]

54. How does a case that lacks standing get so far?

Not the most complex legal concept.

[chriscan64]

61. Their perveived "harm" is ridiculous when you look at it.

The "harm" is simply that the "unworthy" are getting something.