*SMLR-Net, the source of selected news on labor and employment relations and human resource management.*
*Here are 3 items on today's Supreme Court Decision on the health-care law: (1) news article from the Washington Post, (2) links to the full text of the decision, concurrence, and dissents*,* (3) a Washington Post opinion piece on Justice Roberts. These are, of course, just a tiny bit of the media coverage this decision is receiving.* **
June 28, 2012, Washington Post
*Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health-care law* By Robert Barneshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/robert-barnes/2011/05/20/AFZRhx7G_page.html, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court to save the heart of President Obama’s landmark health-care law, agreeing that the requirement for nearly all Americans to secure health insurance is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority.
Even as it upheld that central component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, however, the court modified another key provision of the law, ruling that the federal government cannot withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that decide not to participate in a broad expansion of Medicaid eligibility.
The court’s historic compromise, which will affect the health-care choices of millions of Americans, amounts to a major victory for the White House less than five months before the November elections, although the Medicaid decision sets new limits on the power of the national government.
For the Full Article/Report, See: http://wapo.st/Ma4mAf
*Full Text of NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.*
*648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part.*
*Syllabus, Opinion (Breyer), Concurrence (Ginsburg), Dissent (Scalia), Dissent (Thomas)*
*PDF: http://bit.ly/LEksk6 or, *
*Online at the Legal Information Institute:*
June 28, 2012
*Why Roberts did it (Opinion)* By Charles Krauthammerhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/charles-krauthammer/2011/02/24/ADJkW7B_page.html, Thursday, June 28, 4:11 PM It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.
Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.
** *For Full Article, See: *http://wapo.st/MDKXGm
Rutgers is an equal access/equal opportunity institution. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to direct suggestions, comments, or complaints concerning any accessibility issues with Rutgers websites to firstname.lastname@example.org or complete the Report Accessibility Barrier / Provide Feedback form.
Copyright ©2021, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. All rights reserved. Contact Webmaster