ACA upheld by SCOTUS

[MillCreek]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/obamacare-survives-after-supreme-court-rejects-latest-republican-challenge.html

A 7-2 decision, no less.

[Hawkmoon]

Well, they got that one wrong. I'm a bit surprised that Thomas went along. Not surprised by Roberts or Kavanaugh.

In other news, here's one I think the Black Robes got right: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme-court-sides-with-catholic-adoption-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

[Ben]

The time to stop something big like this is before it gets enacted. Once there, with people getting free stuff, it becomes a 1000 to 1 shot.

The SC seems, in these times, to be very much "don't rock the boat". We saw the same regarding election interference.

[Bogie]

With the left's tactic of large-scale rioting and property destruction, do they have any other choice?
 
Here in St. Louis County, Michael Brown's biological parents (they didn't raise him...) sued Ferguson and the county. 7 figures.
 
They scheduled a press conference on the stops of the county courthouse. Which is in the center of the priciest business district in the metro.
 
The county settled, rather than have millions, if not billions, of destruction.

[RocketMan]

Actually, I believe the ruling was proper in that the States as entities could not show they were being harmed by the individual mandate.  They had no real standing.
Had it been a group of citizens that filed the original suit, and not States themselves, then SCOTUS might have upheld the appeals court ruling.  A group of citizens could have proven both standing and individual harm being done to them.
The SCOTUS ruling still sucks, though.  I firmly believe the individual mandate portion of ObamaCare to be unconstitutional despite what the royal robes group says.
And ObamaCare itself is an abomination that has done more to drive up the costs of medical care in this country than any other legislation in the last 50 years.

[dogmush]

Individual harm might be hard to prove, even for private citizens.

How much harm does a fine of $0.00 cause?

[RocketMan]

Individual harm might be hard to prove, even for private citizens.

How much harm does a fine of $0.00 cause?

It's not the fine, it is the financial harm caused by being forced by the government to purchase a service, health insurance in this case, at exorbitant rates.  It is also being forced to pay a fine for failing to purchase said service.  The fine was still in effect at the time the original suit was filed, if I am not mistaken.
I am sure the fine will be reinstituted soon enough, so that harm will be occurring again.

[Boomhauer]

The people that have been most harmed by Obamacare (or likewise other government bullshit) can’t afford to employ lawyers for a lawsuit or series of lawsuits.

[RocketMan]

The people that have been most harmed by Obamacare (or likewise other government bullshit) can’t afford to employ lawyers for a lawsuit or series of lawsuits.

This is very true.

[dogmush]

It's not the fine, it is the financial harm caused by being forced by the government to purchase a service, health insurance in this case, at exorbitant rates.  It is also being forced to pay a fine for failing to purchase said service.  The fine was still in effect at the time the original suit was filed, if I am not mistaken.
I am sure the fine will be reinstituted soon enough, so that harm will be occurring again.

I admit I haven't followed this case super closely,  but the article I read said the majority opinion specifically mentions the $0 fine.  My understanding is that was part of the "lack of standing " finding. (I have not read the decision).

[RocketMan]

I admit I haven't followed this case super closely,  but the article I read said the majority opinion specifically mentions the $0 fine.  My understanding is that was part of the "lack of standing " finding. (I have not read the decision).

The $0 dollar fine was indeed mentioned.  However, I do not believe the fine $0 dollar fine will remain in effect much longer.  I do not doubt the Biden administration will reinstitute hefty fines in the not too distant future.  Financial harm from a fine will become a thing again.

[dogmush]

Then they would have standing, and I'm sure a slew of lawyers volunteering.

I'm not defending tha ACA by any means, FTR. But the realist in me has to concede that Breyer's right that it's hard to show harm when you aren't actually forced to do something.

Here's the analysis I read, btw, that has a little more detail:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-again-leaves-affordable-care-act-in-place/

The individual plaintiffs, Breyer explained, contended that they are harmed, and therefore have a right to sue, because they have to pay each month for health insurance to comply with the mandate. The problem with that argument, Breyer reasoned, is that although the ACA instructs them to obtain health insurance, the Internal Revenue Service can no longer impose a penalty on taxpayers who fail to obtain insurance – and there is no other government action connected to the harm that the individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered, a key requirement for standing.

ETA: Actually I kinda hope they do up the fine.  Then maybe we could settle this once and for all, without the legal "outs" that have been used to dodge the meat of the question.