John Roberts' health care vote scrutinized

(CBS News) So, who saw that coming? The centerpiece of President Obama's signature health care reform law was saved today by a bizarre alliance led by a conservative chief justice appointed by President George W. Bush.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's four liberal justices in voting 5-4 to declare the law's "individual mandate" constitutional.

The mandate requires nearly all Americans, starting in 2014, to obtain health insurance or pay a tax.

The ruling came with a twist. Democrats had pushed the health care package through arguing that Congress had the authority to require the mandate under the Constitution's "commerce clause."

Although his liberal allies found that the commerce clause is a justifiable means to invoke the mandate, Roberts found it does not give Congress that authority. However, the court determined the mandate is constitutional under Congress' power to "lay and collect taxes."

Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University who wrote an amicus brief opposing the mandate, said he is "more surprised" that the court upheld it under the tax provision.

It was "the federal government's weakest argument," he said.

Watch CBS News' special report in the video to the left.

Richard Friedman, law professor at the University of Michigan, also said he was surprised that Roberts backed the tax argument, which he also called "the weaker argument."

"He probably wanted to provide as little basis as possible for the expansion of federal power," Friedman said, noting that Congressional power to tax is firmly established and that allowing the individual mandate through the commerce clause would have expanded Congress' power.

Many legal prognosticators had predicted that a divided court may narrowly save the health care law by a 5-4 margin. The conventional wisdom was that the "fifth" and deciding vote might be cast, not by Roberts, but by swing justice Anthony Kennedy.

Complete Coverage: Health Care

In fact, just on Wednesday, former legal council to President George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, who vetted Roberts for the court, said on CNN that he would not be surprised if Roberts upheld the mandate.

Watch CBS News' special report in the video to the left.

"One of the traits I most admired about him, and this is very consistent in his judicial decision making, is to decide decisions on the most narrow grounds possible, to not get to constitutional issues you don't have to in order to dispose of a dispute....So in that respect, I expect Justice Roberts to follow that approach in deciding this case," Gonzales said.

Andrew Pincus, partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, said that during his confirmation hearing, Roberts said the courts obligation is to uphold what Congress does as long as it complies with the Constitution.

By deciding "the case the way he did is the best tradition of doing that," said Pincus, who argues cases before the Supreme Court. "The chief justice worked in the federal government, understands federal power and as a student of the court understands the court's role that the political branches have spoken quite conclusively. "

The University of Michigan's Friedman attributed Roberts' position to the weight of the case. "He was reluctant to see his court be the first one in 75 years to throw out a significant piece of legislation."

Somin, who opposed the mandate agreed, saying, "It is generally rare for a court to strike down major legislation that has the support of the president and his party,"

Yet, in another strange turn today it was Kennedy who delivered a strong dissent from the bench declaring that the Roberts' majority was overreaching.

Kennedy criticized the court's determination that the individual mandate was legal under the taxing authority, saying the decision "saves a statute Congress did not write."

Roberts' role in the landmark decision will be long debated and is already drawing fire from conservatives who see the ruling as a lost opportunity to hand the president a major political setback.

But, for supporters of the chief justice the ruling shows that even in a bitterly divided nation's capital politics does not always carry the day.

Still, Washington can create strange political bedfellows. During Roberts' Senate confirmation vote in 2005, one of the senators who voted against him was Barack Obama.

12 Photos

The day in politics: June 28

[wayneonly]

The funny thing about all the comments about the healthcare act is that nobody really knows how good or haw bad it will be for Americans because they don't know what all id contained in the bill or how it will affect them or the rest of the nation. They have listened to the news media, the Republicans, and the insurance lobbies talk about the bad parts of the bill from their perspective. Unfortunately, the President and the Democrats have not been effectively explaining the benefits of the bill as the bills opponents have been at distributing information AND disinformation about the bill. I haven't heard a lot of Massachusetts residents weighing in on their healthcare program which served as a model for the national healthcare bill. Maybe we should ask them how their program is working for the state before we condemn it for the nation.

For forty years Presidents and Congress have tried to get a national healthcare program in place and have failed. We now have a national healthcare program (which is amazingly similar to the one Romney endorsed and signed into law in Massachusetts) but because it was accomplished by Democrats and President Obama, it has suddenly become a political rallying point for Republicans. Or maybe it is another of the good ideas that Obama has put forth that will help the middle and lower income Americans without lining the pockets of big banks, multinational corporations and the 1%ers. So in the eyes of the Republicans it is not good for THEIR constituents. Because we all know that America's middle class and working poor are not what the Republicans consider their constituents.

[calhounite]

I fail to see the distinction. The government cannot force you to eat vegetables in order to lose weight, but it can tax you to death if you don't?

Here's a new flash from the Founding Fathers.

Tax equals force.

[rebasfla]

The saving grace is that the court struck down the Medicaid provision requiring expansion to care for the
lazy, the drug abusers, felons and other riff raff who's abuses suck the wind out of Medicaid which was designed to help the truly needy, not these sub-cultured scumbags. All in all, a decision good for the nation.

[reality_sanity]

Depending on the state the working poor can get medicaid if the state chooses to opt in. If not the Governor and legislators of the state will feel the rath of the working poor as you call them at the ballot box. Many of the Governors and Legislators I expect will be rejecting the opt in opportunity will be the Republicans blocking assistance for the working poor you claim deserve assistance.

[mjvwsr]

Roberts' ruling did a few important things the left isn't talking about. 1. All the waivers to Obamacare that have been given to unions and place like McDonalds will become void. You can't waive taxes. 2. The Catholic church will now certainly win their battle over birth control because the government can't compel someone to pay someone else's taxes. 3. The bill can now be overturned with a simple majority in the House and Senate because the fillbuster rules don't apply to "tax" laws.

It's going to get interesting.

[abbe91]

Not the whole bill, just that part of the bill, the individual mandate.
I'll bet that republicans are not ready to do that. That would make their friends from the healthcare insurance companies very unhappy.

[reality_sanity]

by mjvwsr June 29, 2012 7:35 AM EDT
Roberts' ruling did a few important things the left isn't talking about. 1. All the waivers to Obamacare that have been given to unions and place like McDonalds will become void.

----


The waivers were always temporary until the full version of the health care law became effective in 2014. MORE LIES.

[euge005]

How interesting. The guy the extreme right wanted to take the country back to the 1950's found some integrity and sense of duty to actually up hold his oath of office (more than W ever did for sure). In supporting the constitution he will be branded a traitor to the right and it should be fun today to listen to nut jobs screaming.

Next we get on with the Democratic proirity - jobs.

[Michael_Wensink]

John Roberts is now the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Kennedy can retire.

[vernique3]

Health care mandate a tax and corporations are people. How do they determine these political issues? must be something they are smoking or ingesting.

[tonyatq]

IT WAS OK WHEN BUT IT WAS ROMNEYCARE BUT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT AGREE WITH MA PLAN NOW IT BAD. YOU REPUBLICAN SHOULD BE MAD WITH ROMNEY FOR STARTING IT IN MA.

[reality_sanity]

It's actually less valid in MA because MA is not covered by the 16th Amendment (as MA is not the US Congress) that Chief Justice Roberts used to justify his decision.

[geezer-dude]

I thought Roberts was for the people. We knew Kagan and Sotomyer would vote for Obama. Roberts just wanted to appear compassionate. And we will all regret it.

[sjc_1]

Justice Roberts is Man of the Week as far as I am concerned. First Arizona and now ACA. He rules on the law as it applies to the legislation, which is the whole point of this to begin with.

[bennyblack1]

What people aren't taking into consideration, is that in the mandate to buy health care insurance, the Supreme Court declared it a tax. Therefore, since it is officially named a tax, then, the House Appropriations committee has the final say as to whether it can be funded. Another thing to consider is that about 1% of the population is illegal immigrants and their children, or 7.5 million people taking advantage of medicaid, food stamps, free lunch programs etc etc. 3% of the population at any given time is the elderly, or about 25 million. It cannot be forgotten that there are .4% soldiers and their dependent who get free medical care, but millions of dollars goes into their care, along with the billions going into care of the wounded. Think about it: there are more illegal immigrants than there are soldiers. .3% (.1% less than there are soldiers) are incarcerated, and health care has to be taken care of for them, too. Then, roughly HALF of American citizens (assuming that the average married couple has two kids), leaves about 358 million in need of health care. That means that there are roughly 391 million people, American citizens (52%) that should be paying for their own and their family's healthcare. HOWEVER, there are 64 million people unemployed. So, 327 million (43%) people are paying the tax bill for the other 422 million. And now we have to pay for 422 million people's healthcare, too? No. The house appropriations committee has all the power, and can DENY funding the mandate.

[nearl451]

You don't "fund" a tax, you fund an expense.

Sorry, you are taking this so hard that your mind is having trouble reasoning.

[rebasfla]

If your opinion mattered you'd be sitting on the Bench.