Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
Alex Wong/Getty
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the centerpiece of the nation's new health care law — the individual mandate to buy insurance — as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing authority. Led by veteran reporters Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal wraps up its coverage of the week's historic events with analysis of what the landmark decision will mean not only for the Court but for health care practitioners as well. Plus, a collection of memorable moments from the term and commentaries from top lawyers on both sides of the health care debate.
Tough medicine
The health care decision may have been controversial, but it could push the Supreme Court out of the political spotlight.
CHARTS
• Verbatim: the justices get political
To an unusual degree this term, the justices made comments in decisions and oral arguments that were politically charged or at least related to outside political events.
• The term's top cases
Health care stole the spotlight, but the Court's latest term was bursting with big cases.
Scalia demeanor on bench comes under scrutiny
Advocates and commentators usually shrug off Scalia's sometimes barbed comments from the bench, as well as his stinging dissents. During this term, partly because of the politically fraught cases the justices faced, Scalia's behavior has come in for less forgiving scrutiny.
Supreme Court upholds health care law
In a stunning victory for the Obama Administration, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the centerpiece of the nation's new healthcare law — the so-called individual mandate to buy insurance — as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing authority.
Roberts shuffles the deck with health care decision
In leading the majority ruling on the landmark Affordable Care Act cases, Chief Justice Roberts managed to stay true to his conservative roots while still, at the end of the day, crafting a majority that upheld the law that conservatives so roundly hate.
Who wins? Health care lawyers, that's who
Lawyers say they expect an uptick in demand for their services as clients assess the impact of the health care law.
How they fared
Six oral advocates in the health care case.
In health care and immigration cases, vindication for Verrilli
The health care ruling, paired with Monday's victory for the Obama administration in the Arizona v. United States immigration case, has vindicated Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's role as oral advocate.
Instant commentaries from the front seat
A collection of snap reactions to the decision from Elizabeth Price Foley, Robert Weiner, Randy Barnett, Erwin Chemerinsky, Robert Muise, Asheesh Agarwal, and others.
Feedback: Twitter response to the health care decision
From Rick Santorum and Donald Trump to Michael Moore and Chris Hayes, the Twittersphere was abuzz with 140-character reactions.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL
Continue reading for more coverage on the high court's historic health care decision.
Subscribe to The National Law Journal phyllberg In my opinion, the concept (affordable healthcare) is a right, not a "reform" as proposed by one individual. DOC BARACK seems to be chock full of echoes of empty rhetoric, in general, with no plans for implementation. Re, the issue of affordable health care, it seems that each state of the union must fend for itself. Will the federal government allocate provisions per captia for such a venture? A Philadelphia Lawyer's Thoughts This Historic decision will be studied in U.S. Law Schools forevermore. The Court only decided that the Congress had the power to pass the law persuant to its power to levy taxes. There will be a plethora of cases relative to the Constitutionality of the law's various Mandates as, for example, when a Mandate conflicts with a Religous Institution's Freedom of Conscience guaranteed by the 1st Amendment's protection of Freedom Of Religion. A Philadelphia Lawyer's Thoughts This Historic decision will be studied in U.S. Law Schools forevermore. The Court only decided that the Congress had the power to pass the law persuant to its power to levy taxes. There will be a plethora of cases relative to the Constitutionality of the law's various Mandates as, for example, when a Mandate conflicts with a Religous Institution's Freedom of Conscience guaranteed by the 1st Amendment's protection of Freedom Of Religion. gregreedan I would suggest that if the mandate is coercive, so what. The governments of many states have coercive fees. How about communities which will not allow their fire departments to put out your house fire, unless you've paid your fee. That is even a greater evil, than that imagined by the mandate for health. How about in time of war, when only able bodied people are told to go to basic training or boot camp and go somewhere to be put in harms way? For them, in many cases the mandate is to risk their physical health and well being. I do not see anyone arguing against the legality of the draft during wartime. We are a sick nation, and we have to have a "War against disease" which plagues us, because we have a failing health system. The Health Care payment mandate is a necessary step in this war. Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
To borrow from an old addage from Vaudeville, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings!".
To borrow from an old addage from Vaudeville, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings!".
Reader Comments