Obama Signed The Affordable Healthcare Act into law just two years ago and it has been divided along party lines. Today, the Supreme Court issued their decision as to whether the law is constitutional or not. Huffingtonpost reports:
The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act.
The 5-4 majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress' commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the majority.
The decision in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services comes as something of a surprise after the generally hostile reception the law received during the six hours of oral arguments held over three days in March. But by siding with the court's four Democratic appointees, Chief Justice Roberts avoided the delegitimizing taint of politics that surrounds a party-line vote while passing Obamacare's fate back to the elected branches. GOP candidates and incumbents will surely spend the rest of the 2012 campaign season running against the Supreme Court and for repeal of the law.
The Supreme Court handed down their decision on the controversial Arizona immigration law. It struck down three of four parts of the law. MSNBC reports:
The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government.
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
The decision was a partial victory for President Obama who had criticized the Arizona law, saying it “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”
The Justice Department had moved quickly in 2010 to block enforcement of the law. The administration had argued that the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the federal government, not the states, and that where the federal government has pre-empted state action, no state can intrude on that federal turf.
In the oral argument before the high court on April 25 Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Arizona did not have the power to exclude or remove a person who is in the state illegally.
Although some critics of the law have contended that it would inevitably lead to targeting of Latinos simply because of appearance, speaking Spanish, or having a Spanish accent, Verrilli told the justices on April 25 “We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case.”
Since enforcement of the law had been blocked by a federal judge soon after its enactment, the Obama administration did not present a record to the Supreme Court of the law leading to incidents of ethnic profiling of Latinos in the state.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.
Justice Elena Kagan, who served as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, had recused herself from the Arizona case.
The high court’s decision comes just days after Obama announced a new administration policy of not deporting illegal immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States, or were brought to the United States before reaching age 16, who are in school, or have graduated from high school, gotten a general education certificate, or are military veterans. The illegal immigrants covered by the new administration policy will be permitted to apply for authorization to work legally in the United States.
Appearing in the Rose Garden, yesterday, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada and Felipe Caldoron of Mexico, the President spoke candidly about why he think The Supreme Court will keep his Affordable Health Care Act. The first reason was because he says that two very lower court conservative justices had already agreed that penalizing people who didn't purchase health insurance was within Congress' power.
He said it would be bad if they undid the Act because so many children had already been given insurance, changes had already been made to prescription Medicare, and insurance industry reforms had already been put in place.
The President said:
"This is not an abstract argument," he declared. "People's lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the in-affordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of pre-existing conditions … I think the American people understand and I think that the justices should understand that in the absence of the individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care."
"So there not only is an economic element to this, and a legal element to this, there is also a human element to this," he added.
In his third and final and strongest point, he said would be the very judicial activism conservatives often exercised. He said the law went through both Congress' and was signed by the President. He said this would be a form of judicial overreach.
He said:
"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," the president concluded. "And I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."