Election 2012

ObamaCare Decision: Dow Falls Sharply After SCOTUS Ruling, Romney Speaks, Pelosi: "Victory for the American people"

|

simply amazing

The Dow and S&P 500 fell sharply after the Supreme Court announced its decision on Obamacare.

The court's ruling, that the individual mandate in ObamaCare could survive as a tax, means ObamaCare is probably the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

Mitt Romney said he disagreed with the court's decision and agreed with the dissent. "I will act to repeal ObamaCare," he said, promising to do so on his first day in office, also lamenting the healthcare law's cuts in Medicaid. Obama is set to speak at 12:15pm.

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls today's decision the birth of the Roberts court

Quotable from the opinion:

Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices"

Tweets:

Nancy Pelosi: "Victory for the American people! Millions of American families and children will have certainty of health care benefits + affordable care,"

Nick Gillespie: "Please Democrats, while celebrating, please don't spike the nuclear football by mistake."

Jeffrey Toobin: "Big winner at ?#scotus today is don verrilli, solicitor general. Among losers is me, who was so critical of of his oral argument."

Complete Reason coverage of Obamacare.

Advertisement

NEXT: ACA Ruling "hurts President Obama's reelection prospects," and Other GOP Talking Points

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More reasons to stop Romney and the GOP in November. We just achieved the right to health care and they are just itching at the chance to strip away our liberties.

    1. Congratulations progressives, your plan to tax the young and poor has been upheld.

      Now run on that platform in November.

      1. “Largest tax increase in history.”

        Good campaign slogan you guys have there. Good luck.

    2. Are you sure you achieved the right to health care? I don’t seem to see where that’s what the Affordable Care Act actually does. But dream on.

    3. You mean the right to be taxed if you don’t send a check to the insurance corporations.

      1. It’s funny how people confused “coverage” in name and actual health care access.

    4. there is no “right” to health care anymore than there is a right to food, housing, transportation, or a job. But, I don’t want to put ideas in your head.

      1. Thankfully, entering the 20th century and protecting the liberty of the people to have health care is just the first step towards a sane society that will also protect the liberty of the people to have those other things.

        1. Can I have the liberty to copulate with whomever I please too?

          1. The Commerce Clause gives the government the right to tell you when, how, and who you must have sex with, and you will be penalized by the IRS for non-compliance.

            1. I think benji needs to stop putting his Captain Picard uniform on every moring and having a breakfast of shrooms.

        2. benji,
          what part of “liberty” includes the govt forcing you to buy something? You cannot possibly be that obtuse. Besides, we are now in the 21st century. Try to keep up.

          1. Uhh, having a liberty for the people to have health care is a 20th century concept. Now that we’ve entered the 20th century instead of the backwards robber baron Jim Crow idea of what liberties are we can move into the 21st century and start protecting more modern liberties.

            1. You didn’t answer the question.

              1. CG,
                he can’t answer because he does not know the answer. Hell, he thinks liberty means govt forcing people to do things.

                benji,
                find a dictionary and look up the word. Report back when you find any definition of it that includes govt forcing you to do anything.

        3. Thankfully, entering the 20th century

          If you have access to time travel, why don’t you use it to stop Hitler or something actually relevant?

          1. If you stop Hitler then Stalin will just steamroll Europe. Sheesh, didn’t you ever play Red Alert?

            1. I’d be okay with that. Nazi Germany were the first to design the model for national healthcare… If the USSR had taken over Europe, we would just have a lot more vodka in the world.

      2. there is no “right” to health care anymore than there is a right to food, housing, transportation, or a job.

        No but there is a right to be taxed.

        Oh and to be forced into a contract with a private party.

        1. And a right to alter or abolish any Form of Government.

    5. Put down the hacky sack and get a job, hippie. Not the free shit you voted for? You just now realize that?

    6. Boy you are one stupid troll!

      1. Benji is one stupid troll (I hate these threaded comments)

  2. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices”

    Ouch.

    1. Something about getting the government you deserve good and hard.

    2. Let’s try to find a silver lining here. With this statement he seems to be saying:

      “It’s not my fault fucking stupid voters voted in fucking stupid politicians who wrote a fucking stupid law. If you people don’t want fucking stupid laws being passed then stop voting in fucking stupid politicians. You’ll have the perfect opportunity to vote out a bunch of the stupid fucking politicians this November. Please get you collective asses out of your heads and vote in some right thinking politicians from my team who will undo this fucking stupid law.”

      1. Wow I butchered the end of that.

        “Get your collective heads out of your asses and vote in some right thinking politicians from my team who will undo this fucking stupid law.”

  3. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices”

    In other words, elections have consequences. Looks like he’s going for the vote out Obama angle.

    1. but Team Obama insisted all along that the mandate was not a tax, something Roberts did not agree with. Maybe what he’s really saying is, “just because a Repub president appoints a Justice does not mean that Justice will let the Constitution get in his way.”

      1. I dunno, it seems a bit to me like he’s trying to give Obama a round-about kick to the balls. Maybe I’m taking it the wrong way but he seems to be urging the people to vote in some politician that will repeal the law.

        1. if that is his aim, then he just appears gutless instead of stupid. Anyway, repeal seems unlikely given how the sausage gets made in DC, unless the Repubs conjure up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

  4. How is Don Verilli a winner?

    In order to write the ruling, Roberts had to invent an entirely new rationale that Verilli did not argue.

    1. I was wondering that too.

      1. Did he argue it was a tax?

        1. He did… that was his third defense:

          1) Commerce Clause
          2) Necessary and Proper
          3) Tax
          4) Fuck you! That’s why.

    2. Don Verilli pulled a homer: to succeed despite idiocy.

  5. Congrats, Progressives! You now have the judicial precedent to force the American people to do/buy whatever you want as long as you pin a tax penalty to it. One step closer to that centrally controlled, dictatorship America you always wanted.

    1. As I mentioned in a thread below it’s also one step closer to that theocratic dictatorship they wanted as well.

    1. That’s pretty damn stupid.

    2. I don’t think “Supreme” means what she thinks it means.

    3. The Pope thinks socialized medicine is great, so you’re not going to have much luck there.

  6. The Dow and SP 500 fell sharply after the Supreme Court announced its decision on Obamacare.

    But hospital stocks surged…

    They’re gonna be making so much money!

    And the service the hospitals deliver? That’s gonna be like what you get at the DMV! They’re not gonna have to worry about how they take care of their customers anymore!

    If you don’t like it–so what?!

    If you don’t buy it anyway, the IRS is gonna come after you…

    SUCKER!

  7. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices”

    So in other words, he knows we’re being screwed but doesn’t think it’s his job to intervene…what’s his job again?

    1. Well, his job has to do with constitutionality, not policy decisions. Granted, I think this was also unconstitutional, but he’s saying that it’s not his job to defend against bad policy, only unconstitutional bad policy.

      1. the policy specifically called it a mandate, not a tax. Obama and others are on record, repeatedly, saying it is NOT a tax. Yet, Roberts divines tax where one in not spelled out. His job is not to cipher what he thinks the authors of a law meant, but to decide whether what it actually says can stand. There is no other product/service I can think of for which the penalty of non-purchase is a govt fine.

        1. That was the point argued by the Tax Foundation.

      2. I’m sorry, I should have mentioned that, due to the fact that he found the mandate unconstitutional, and only allowed it through by twisting it into being the exact thing that the WH and democrats argued it wasn’t, a tax, he abdicated his role of upholding the constitution to protect us from an overreaching congress. Seems to me that is exactly his job.

      3. WTF, my post was spam?! How about this one?

        Due to the fact that, without twisting the mandate into what the WH and Democrats argued it wasn’t, a tax, he indicated that it was unconstitutional. By my way of thinking, he abdicated his responsibility to use the constitution to protect us from an over-reaching legislative body.

        Seems to me that is exactly his role.

    2. His job is to apply the Constitution to the law. Not to decide whether it’s a good law.

      I don’t think he’s doing a particularly good job of what his job is, but that statement is per se correct.

    3. So in other words, he knows we’re being screwed but doesn’t think it’s his job to intervene…what’s his job again?

      His job is to invent specious bullshit to approve of whatever the government wants.

  8. Heading to the store now to buy my government-mandated broccoli.

    1. It’s not a mandate, we’ll just tax the shit out of you if you don’t buy any.

  9. The Dow and SP 500 fell sharply after the Supreme Court announced its decision on Obamacare.

    post hoc ergo propter hoc?

    The Dow’s been bouncing around for days. It had a much steeper drop on Monday morning.

  10. Among losers is me, who was…

    Among the losers are grammar and I, who was

    1. “grammar and I, who were

      1. Among the losers are grammar and I, it was I who was so was so critical of his oral argument

        Thank you.

        1. a diploma for you, sir. ๐Ÿ™‚

  11. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices”

    In other words, “Fuck you dumb fuckers that voted for this guy. I don’t give a shiieeet.”

    1. See, this is what I think too. He’s basically daring people to keep Obama in office.

    2. I really wonder if he realizes the implications of that statement. Does that not mean any law should be upheld simply because the people voted for the politicians that created the law, and the consequences are their own fault?

      1. If the law is horrible but not unconstitutional then yes. At least, that’s how I interpret it.

        1. The courts often throw in verbiage like this when upholding laws. “Don’t blame us – we didn’t pass the law, we’re just ascertaining whether it’s constitutional.”

      2. the whole statement sounds like a monumental cop out. I still think it could just as easily be a jab at those who thought Bush would appoint only Constitutional scholars to SCOTUS.

        Somewhere, it escaped Roberts that it is very much his job to protect people from the consequences of politicians’ choices, if those choices are found lacking.

  12. I keep hearing that Romney would never repeal this thing. Why not? What could he possibly gain from keeping Obamacare around?

    1. Why would he do something that might alienate potential swing voters?

      Especially if he wasn’t the one that caused it in the first place.

      1. And especially since it’s based on RomneyCare.

        Romney will say whatever helps separate him from the other candidate. If he were to win, he would make no effort to repeal.

        The amazing thing is people still take politicians at the word.

        1. Swing voters hate this thing. Romney doesn’t have to make an effort but if he were to veto a repeal he would be tarred and feathered by his own party. The idea that Romney would keep Obamacare alive is still nonsense!

    2. He’ll try, and Democrat pundits everywhere will do a 180 and suddenly rediscover the incredible awesomeness of the filibuster.

  13. Obama truly is a great President who understands what’s like for the rest of us:
    “Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose laws will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it”

    1. That’s the dumbest quote ever. How can a law be more secure because of another law?

      Fucking idiot.

      1. benji is just pretending to be a troll. He’s so stung by today’s ruling he’s coping by being ironic.

        1. Maybe, maybe not. It’s probably a paid Obama “volunteer.” Perhaps some logical responses might make it realize how stupid this president really is.

      2. No longer does Congress have to worry that things may be found unconstitutional.

        1. so when Congress decides that everyone MUST own a gun, since there is a 2nd Amendment and crime is a problem and and and, you will be okay with that, right?

          Otherwise, twin sad realities with your statement: you may be right and you are too stupid to see the potential consequences. Unless you don’t believe that a Congressional majority you dislike will ever have power again.

          1. More reason to overturn Citizens United and restore the liberty of the people to vote for Democrats.

            1. At least you’re a shameless troll

  14. It occurs to me, Libertarians, that you’ve all been taking the wrong approach by being loosely associate with the Republican party.

    What you all need/must do is infiltrate the Democrat party.

    The dialogue in this country should only ever be between conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals.

    The social liberals and their European/Marxist kin are a necrotic abscess.

    1. The dialogue in this country should only ever be between conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals.

      You don’t really understand the concept of freedom much, do you?

      1. Who’s denying it aside from progressives? I’m suggesting a different political approach.

        1. By limiting the field of debate to a particular ideology, you limit freedom.

          I want to hear stupid ideas so that I can explain exactly why they’re stupid and hopefully shame the person proposing the idea into thinking before they suggest something.

          1. “limiting the field of debate to a particular ideology, you limit freedom.”
            Read more carefully: I didn’t say ‘limit’ by force. I’m saying libertarians should take on progressive democrats more directly.

            1. I think generally libertarians do when the republicans are in power. Think back to the Bush years.

              Libertarians side with both parties a little on different issues. The problem is that most “independents” value certain handouts more than individual liberty. Most people are willing to sell a little liberty for some handout or another, and when it compiles into a group, they have the power to gain whatever handout they want.

              “Those that would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and will lose both.” We’re just seeing it in action, albeit slowly. I expect the pace to quicken in the next decade or two though.

          2. I’m not opposed to the free market of ideas.

            but rather than butting heads with Republicans day and night and losing to establishment GOP’ers, you ought to try eating at the Dems for a change.

            1. Dems are impervious to logic. Once you accept the premise that the government should have power to control individuals “for the benefit of the people,” you’ve proven yourself too dumb to be reasoned with.

          3. I think sunny is suggesting a reverse Alinsky, take over from the inside. That is the one thing about this administration that most folks refuse to wrap their heads around: what conventional political wisdom would hold as negative outcomes – rising unemployment, soaring food stamp rolls, etc – this group sees as the goal.

    2. A joke?

  15. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices”

    It is hard to imagine a starker endorsement of mob rule.

    1. It is hard to imagine a starker endorsement of mob rule the will of the people.

  16. So when do the impeachment proceedings against Kagan begin?

  17. The court’s ruling, that the individual mandate in Obamacare could survive as a tax, means Obamacare is probably the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

    I wonder if the Romney campaign is smart enough to use this.

    1. He already has.

  18. In response to the earlier responses to my earlier post at 12:18, reposted here due to:

    WTF, my post was spam?! How about this one? No, what about this one?

    Due to the fact that, without twisting the mandate into what the WH and Democrats argued it wasn’t, a tax, he indicated that it was unconstitutional. By my way of thinking, he abdicated his responsibility to use the constitution to protect us from an over-reaching legislative body.

    Seems to me that is exactly his role.

  19. I avoid listening to Pelosi speak at all costs, but I imagine she enunciates “health care” similarly to how slow zombies clamor for brains.

  20. You know who else didn’t strike down Obamacare?

    1. Luke Skywalker?

      1. Darth Vader?

  21. They’ll have to actually replace ACA, not repeal, because a repeal (return to status quo of 2009) isn’t going to fly. Honestly, this could be an opportunity to piece-by-piece replace Obamacare with market reforms.

    1. Yeah, but think of all the handouts that will go along with this “replacement.”

      “Yeah, I’ll have the shit sandwich with rabbit turds on it please.”

  22. So, I seem to have been marked as a SPAM bot somehow. Strange. For the record (if this posts), The constitution is supposed to be the shield the SC justices use to protect us from legislative over-reach. If protecting us from fucked up laws isn’t Chief Justice Roberts job, I don’t know what is.

  23. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices”

    YES IT FUCKING IS! The primary job of the court is to protect the people by checking the legislature and asshat politicians.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.