This takes away one of the Republicans BIGGEST weapons to use against the President, and is going to be devastating to the Romeny campaign.
This is incredibly good news!
Update: Here is what the Washington Post has to way:
The Supreme Court just upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional, affirming Congress’ authority to require Americans to purchase health insurance coverage.
It’s no doubt an understatement to describe this as a huge victory for the law, and the Obama administration. The Affordable Care Act – after spending two years in legal limbo – now has the court’s backing to move forward. That does not, however, mean the law has smooth sailing ahead. Many obstacles still stand in the law’s way, ones that could derail its success nearly as much as an adverse legal ruling.
That may be true, but this ruling is a monster victory for the President, and one that simply CANNOT be overstated.
Update 2: I found this on Reddit, as reprinted from the SCOTUS blog:
1) The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.
2) The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read. !!!!
3) Chief Justice Roberts' vote saved the ACA.
4) The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.
5) The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.
6) On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.
7) The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55)
8) The Court does not reach severability issues, having upheld the mandate 5-4.
9) The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
10) The Court holds that the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply because the label "tax" is not controlling.
11) Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.
12) Kennedy is reading from the dissent. In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." (Big Surprise there ha? /s)
So far this is the best rundown I have seen on the internet.
Update 3: It looks like CNN, in their overly impulsive desire to report that SCOTUS struck down the law, joined Fox News in their journalistic accuracy.
Update 4: The Lunatic from Lake Lucille tweets her anger at this decision:
Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn't a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.
Hee, hee, hee! It looks like somebody got up on the wrong side of history today.
Update 5: Wow! I am used to Palin having the dumbest responses to these things, but check out Rand Paul's response to the decision by SCOTUS:
“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Paul said.
You know I don't believe that Paul UNDERSTANDS what "Constitutional" means. nor what the Supreme Court's role IS in determining what is, and is not constitutional.