WBEZ | Supreme Court

Tea Leaves, Notes on Prop 8 and DOMA

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:34:00 -0500

There seems to be a growing consensus that the Supreme Court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act but step away from Prop 8, ruling that the plaintiffs in the case -- private citizens who led a public referendum to undo California’s same sex marriage legalization -- don’t actually have standing.

If that’s what they do -- and I tend to lean in that direction -- the net effect will mean that, on Prop 8, the ruling of the lower courts will stand: Prop 8 will be thrown out and same sex marriages will be legal in California again. The ruling will affect only California.

Ruling DOMA unconstitutional will mean that same sex couples married in any one of the eight states and the District of Columbia that permit it will be eligible for all the rights and privileges of opposite sex couples -- and as the Justices pointed out, there are more than 1,000 benefits from which same sex married couples are currently excluded, including Social Security survivor benefits, military family housing, tax filing, etc.

But here are a few other things to consider:

* There may be no majority opinion on Prop 8. Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed torn between wanting the case tossed and not wanting to devalue referendum efforts. But some of the Justices may rule the law unconstitutional (probably Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Steven Breyer and Ruth Gingsburg), others may argue standing (Samuel Alito, John Roberts), and some may argue that Prop 8 should be upheld (Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas). If the majority opinion doesn’t have five Justices signing it, there’s no precedent. If the Justices don’t rule it out on standing, this may be the only way out on Prop 8. Otherwise, the court will be forced into establishing a constitutional precedent: either there’s a right to same sex marriage (which the conservatives don’t want on the books) or there’s not (which the liberals don’t want). Prop 8 is all or nothing -- there's almost no way to narrow it down; ruling on standing avoids both of those conclusions, as does not getting a majority.

* If the Justices strike down California's ban on gay marriage by upholding Prop 8, tossing the case, or not getting a majority, it would trigger marriage ban repeal efforts in other states. Forty-one states now ban same-sex marriage. On the other hand, a verdict to find Prop 8 unconstitutional would render all of those bans illegal without state recourse.

* If the Justices rule that the citizen organizers of Prop 8 don’t have standing, that the interests of the people of California can only be represented in court by elected officials such as the state’s governor, attorney general or solicitor general, they will seriously cripple California’s referendum system (perhaps not the worst thing that could happen, given the state’s history of controversial, and frequently problematic, propositions).

* Standing -- whether there is an actual adversarial relationship between the parties before the court -- may actually be more tentative in DOMA than in the Prop 8 case. In fact, the Justices appointed an attorney to argue there’s no standing in DOMA but not in Prop 8.

In DOMA, the government has already determined the law is unconstitutional but has continued to enforce it in spite of lower rulings that agree. In other words, the Obama administration and Edie Windsor, the plaintiff, are on the same side. In the meantime, the people defending DOMA are with the House of Representatives’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG). Both Roberts and Scalia made a point of saying it was unprecedented for a case to come to the court in which the law was being defended by a group that had not sustained injury or, basically, had much to do with the original suit. Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader in the House, has argued BLAG does not, in fact, represent the House’s interests but only that of the GOP leadership. (BLAG has racked up a a $3 million bill so far.)

If the court decides BLAG doesn’t have standing, it’s less clear what will happen. Most likely, there will be no precedent and DOMA will continue on the books until there’s another case or until Congress repeals it. Windsor would most likely get her tax monies back, as ordered by the lower courts.

* Should there be no decision on DOMA, and if the law gets kicked back to Congress for repeal, the votes would break straight down party lines in the Senate but not quite in the House. There are currently six Republicans who support repealing DOMA, and 19 Democrats who support DOMA, including two in Illinois: Jerry Costello and Dan Lipinsky.

* The National Organization for Marriage has said that, should there be a vote for same sex marriage in either case, it will begin a campaign for a Federal Marriage amendment, banning marriage equality nationwide. “We need a solution in this country, we cannot be, as Lincoln said, half slave, half free,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. The FMA has been around since 2002, when former Supreme Court aspirant Robert Bork helped draft it, but it’s never had enough support to even come for a vote. Nothing suggests it would have any better success now.

You can support equality without being into marriage

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 05:00:00 -0500

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that intelligence is the “ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

I thought of Fitzgerald today as SCOTUS deliberated on Prop 8 and God was flooded with prayers from queer people to strike Scalia dead and friends flooded my Facebook feed with equal signs to show their support for marriage equality. It should have been an easy decision, right? I click a button, make a red mathematical mark my profile pic and then go back to watching Bob’s Burgers instead of being productive.

But I didn’t do it. I couldn’t do it. I support marriage equality, but my support deserves more explanation than a simple photograph can explain, and I saw a number of fights break out on Facebook as people struggled to articulate their mixed emotions on marriage to friends and family. Our politics are complicated. A picture might speak a thousand words, but in this case, those would be the wrong ones. These are my thousand words. They are my own.

As a queer person and a human person who respects the dignity of all people, I support everyone’s right to love and to have that love recognized, if they so choose. I support my friends who have waited for years and decades to do something that Britney Spears can do when she’s drunk.

I support everyone that deserves to be able to visit their partner in the hospital or inherit half of their life together when their partner dies. I support their right to completely, totally screw them up, just like straight parents do. I support the rights of distant gay dads and overbearing lesbian mothers. I support their right to a divorce -- to the ugliest, most Real Housewives-esque arbitration known to man.

I support everyone’s right to have whatever beautifully imperfect love they want, to strive to do better than their parents and fail sometimes and post pictures of it on Facebook. One day, I spent an hour and a half looking through Facebook photos of my favorite professor and her partner’s preposterously adorable twins, which they dress in matching baby jumpers. They even dressed them up like chickens for Halloween. Motherflipping chickens. How can I not support baby poultry? I’m not a monster.

However, supporting and affirming their marriages doesn't mean I have to support marriage as a concept or believe it should be the issue sweeping our social media. I want to see people coming together to think critically about assimilation and what marriage, as a value, means for us. Same-sex marriage isn't a shortcut to queer liberation, and it's not just society's views on who can get married that need to evolve. It's marriage.

Of all people, I feel that Rufus Wainwright put it best. Wainwright is a libertarian (like our good friend Ron Swanson) and doesn’t believe in marriage in general. When asked about it his feelings on marriage equality back in 2008, Mr. Wainwright quipped:

“Oddly enough, I’m actually not a huge gay marriage supporter. I personally don’t want to get married but I think that any law or amendment to the constitution that deals with sex and love should just be banned in general. I don’t think any government should encroach on what goes on in the bedroom at all. Frankly, if you want to marry a dog, why don’t you go ahead and marry a dog, I don’t care.”

But despite his opposition to marriage in general, Wainwright affirmed his belief in the individual’s right to decide for themselves: “A girl likes options," he said. "Maybe someday I will want to marry.”

I agree with Wainwright (who later did get married to his partner). I believe in a person’s right to choose the relationship that’s right for them, whether that’s a beautiful lesbian family with heartbreakingly photogenic children or no family at all. I also want to celebrate the unattached people and everyone who resists our culture of Singleism and doesn’t confer rights to healthcare and visitation just because they’re in a relationship the state approves of.

As a feminist, I don’t want to tell anyone that they need to get married to be deserving of rights and protections. Imagine if you told a female friend of yours she had to get married to have worth. She would Hulk-smash you.

Instead, I think that we need to do more work to give the benefits of marriage to everyone. Single folks deserve healthcare, just like poly folks shouldn’t have to decide which of their partners gets to have rights and which do not. While we figure out what the Affordable Healthcare Act means for queer and trans* folks, we must continue to fight for our community health, including the people that marriage leaves out.

The problem is that marriage, as an ideology, speaks to a homonormative subset of the community, where our worth is predicated on our ability to fit into a straight-approved archetype of "gay identity." It asks us to be a part of the new normal, rather than critiquing the idea of a normal existing at all. Instead, we need to fight for the people outside of the box and their right to critique the box and tear down the box. We need to recognize the institutions that created the box, ask whose agenda the box really serves and question why we need a box at all. Screw the box.

We can support our friends who want to get married while realizing that marriage doesn’t speak to all of our experiences, reflecting on those whose systemic issues marriage can’t fix. What about the queer and trans* youth who don’t need a ring to fix their problems? We need to put a roof on it, providing shelter for all those who need solace and refuge. All of us deserve love, whether that love is a piece of paper that speaks to decades of struggle for recognition or having a community that supports you and gives you the safe spaces you need.

Our love needs to be bigger, greater and more inclusive. Our love needs to stop asking trans* people to wait their turn, to start recognize bisexuals as even existing and to work to create a culture that isn’t just marriage positive: it’s body positive, fat positive, single positive, sex positive and intersectional. While we fight for marriage equality, we must remember to simply fight for equality.

Equality isn’t just an inevitability. It’s a necessity. Our community needs equal rights, so we can stop funding the rights of some and focus on the rights of all. It’s time for marriage equality, but it’s also time to move on. It’s time for trans people. It’s time for gender non-conformers. It’s time for the differently abled. That’s what equality means to me. Equality means everyone.

I know they don’t have a Facebook photo for that, but that’s what I want to see my Facebook feed light up with. I don't want it just to celebrate some of the luminous people I know. I want it to celebrate all of you.

Nico Lang writes about LGBTQ issues in Chicago. You can follow Nico on Twitter @Nico_Lang or find him on Tumblr and Facebook.

Prop 8 lawyer's Supreme Court argument: Babies and timing

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:46:00 -0500

The weirdest part of this morning’s arguments on Prop 8 before the Supreme Court is that everybody -- including the lawyer representing Prop 8 backers -- seems to think same sex marriage is an inevitability, but that the court’s duty is not to hurry it along.

“Consider the California voter, in 2008,” said Charles Cooper, the attorney for Prop 8’s backers, “in the ballot booth, with the question before her whether or not this age-old bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there’s no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of -- of profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution would be. That is reason enough, Your Honor, that would hardly be irrational for the voter to say, I believe that this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old, even in Massachusetts, the oldest state that is conducting it, to say, I think it better for California to hit the pause button and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing.”

The pause button! Not the stop or off button, but the pause button!

And what’s the rationale for the slowdown? To see if same-sex marriage is working?

Here’s my question: How in heaven’s name would that be measured?

The arguments put forth by Cooper were, frankly, stunning to me. They center mostly on procreation.

“The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples,” Cooper said.

But doesn’t that actually sound like what modern marriage already is? Hasn’t that redefinition already taken place among heterosexuals without any influence from the debate about same sex marriage? Hasn’t industrialization and feminism already made “the emotional needs and desires of adults” the focus of modern marriage?

And because the case is based in California, where adoption is permitted to same-sex couples and where both partners in same-sex couples appear on the birth certificate of biological children, how does same sex marriage affect procreation and, specifically, procreation in traditional heterosexual families?

It’s obvious it doesn’t.

Still, this morning’s proceedings suggest that the decision -- if there is a decision -- will likely be split and narrow. While it’s fair to say that Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer seem ready to toss the totality Prop 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy, possibly the most anguished of the justices and the necessary vote in either direction, seemed a bit reluctant. (Kennedy is also the author of the only two Supreme Court decisions to affirm rights for gays.)

It was Kennedy, in fact, who today specifically brought up the ruling by the 9th District Court, which determined that Prop 8 improperly denied a right granted to same sex couples by the California Supreme Court. If the justices choose to uphold that verdict, the dismissal of Prop 8 would apply only to California and have no bearing on any other state. In other words, it would be a way of avoiding affirming a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples.

But there is also a chance -- slim but present -- that the case might be dismissed based on standing. That is, that the backers of Prop 8 do not have right to defend it before the court because the state of California itself -- meaning the governor and the attorney general -- have chosen not to defend it.

This last scenario would have multiple effects: One, it would toss out Prop 8 but without setting precedent. And it would hurl California’s ballot initiative process into chaos.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:58:00 -0600

The first Hispanic and third woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor has become an instant American icon. Now, with a candor and intimacy never undertaken by a sitting Justice, she recounts her life from a Bronx housing project to the federal bench in her new book, My Beloved World. The journey recounted in this memoir offers testament to her own extraordinary determination and the power of believing in oneself.

Recorded Thursday, January 30, 2013 at the Harold Washington Library Center.

Gay rights arrive at the Supreme Court

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:00:00 -0600

On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, challenged during a Q&A after a lecture about the loaded language he has sometimes used when discussing gay people, shot back, "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"

The polemic came in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear two cases which involve marriage rights: the odious Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop 8. Never mind Scalia's casual stringing of together of homosexuality and murder and how it might suggest moral equivalency — neither case involves our rights to “feelings” or even to discriminate and hate.

Scalia, who’s a likely nay vote on both cases, saw their arrival on the court’s docket way back in 2003. At that time Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, said the court’s ruling “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

“Do not believe it,” Scalia replied. The decision, he argued, opened up the way to legalizing same sex marriage. He added that it left state laws restricting unions to opposite sex couples pretty “shaky.”

Now here we are, as Scalia predicted. Prop 8 is a California case that will mostly affect Californians. The court could decide the merits — the very legality of same-sex marriage — but it could also come down very narrowly, making it possible for California to restrict or allow same-sex marriage without spillover effects to other states.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which has tax and immigration implications as well as those of equal access, is the real red meat before the Supreme Court. It’s what really keeps state bans alive, what keeps binational couples apart and what denies queer families a host of federal benefits available to heterosexually-constructed families. The repeal of DOMA would change that.

This time around, the defense of DOMA is brought us by, among others, the Republicans from the U.S. House of Representatives. When President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder decided in March 2011 to stop defending the law, Speaker of the House John Boehner and his gang decided to hire Paul Clement (the same guy who argued against Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court), at a cost of $2 million of taxpayer money so far. His job: to convince the high court to keep the law on the books.

The law is ugly and it looks uglier now that public opinion seems to be favoring same-sex marriage, but it wasn’t always so: DOMA was signed by Bill Clinton and supported in the U.S. senate by none other than Joe Biden.

He was joined by several Democratic senators who are still serving: Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Carl Levin of Michigan, Max Baucus of Montana, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

In fact, DOMA passed 85-14, a shameful exercise in fear. Among those who stood up against the law there are a few who are still in the Senate: Both of California’s senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Hawaii’s Daniel Inouye, Massachusetts’ John Kerry, and Ron Wyden of Oregon. Not a single Republican voted to protect LGBTQ citizens.

In the House, DOMA passed 342-67, and only one Republican opposed it: Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin. In the Illinois delegation, only two Democrats voted against it: Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Luis Gutierrez. Even Bobby Rush, that great civil rights lion, voted for DOMA, as did current U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin.

But times change. Clinton says he’s sorry about DOMA, and Biden loves gays (I suspect he always did). Every single Democratic Senator who supported DOMA in 1996 now supports its repeal. Durbin and Rush are now on board.

And the Supreme Court? Well, if Lawrence v. Texas is an indication, Justices Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer – who were in the majority – should be votes to strike down DOMA. Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who were joined by William Rehnquist in this case, will likely continue their dissent.

Elena Kagan actively worked to undermine DOMA as Solicitor General and Sonia Sotomayor has a record of ruling against discrimination of LGBTQs, making them very likely supporters of a DOMA repeal.

Before joining the court, Samuel Alito had supported the right to privacy, including consensual sexual activity, but he also believes that "anti-harassment" policy violates free speech, including the right to make "derogatory" speech on "contentious issues" such as "sexual orientation." Speech and same sex marriage aren’t the same thing, of course, but part of the argument against same sex marriage, especially Scalia’s, involves the right of society to discriminate against certain behaviors and reserve certain privileges. If I were to bet, I’d say Alito joins Scalia and Thomas. Or maybe he dissents alone, but he very likely dissents.

So the count looks good for repeal, so much so that Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote might not be necessary. But I suspect that Roberts, who is keenly concerned with history and precedent, may be about to disappoint conservatives again. My suspicion is that Roberts’ hand will be felt in keeping the ruling to its narrowest possible conclusion, but that, in the end, he’ll support repeal.

It’s been a while so most folks will have forgotten, but Roberts is no stranger to gay rights. In fact, once upon a time, he volunteered, pro bono, to advise on the queer side of a gay rights case. He doesn’t talk about it, the Right tries to rationalize it, but it’s there: as a young lawyer, Roberts weighed in for gay rights.

It’s not often that the Supreme Court makes me feel optimistic. But this time, especially given everything that’s happened since Lawrence, LGBTQ Americans may finally get some real honest-to-god rights.

Supreme Court rejects plea to block taping of police

Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:38:00 -0600

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has rejected an Illinois prosecutor's plea to allow enforcement of a law aimed at stopping people from recording police officers on the job.

The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers. The law sets out a maximum prison term of 15 years.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2010 against Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group's long-standing monitoring missions.

Opponents of the law say the right to record police is vital to guard against abuses.

Risky Business: What happens when only the sick buy insurance

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:20:00 -0500

On Thursday, WBEZ talked to lawmakers, strategists, doctors, lawyers and economists over five hours of live health care coverage. We heard from moms with sick kids who were overjoyed by the news of the upheld mandate, and we heard from conservatives so convinced that the law is flawed that they vowed to repeal it in Congress. Friday morning on Eight Forty-Eight we return to the story after a day of reflection to explore how the legislation, now that it is confirmed, will affect the insurance market going forward.

Many believe that Illinois legislators were lackadaisical about creating a health care exchange because they thought the mandate would be struck down. Now that they’re sure it will stand, it’s time to figure out what the exchange will mean and how we’ll manage to comply before the federal deadline.

One thing both of Friday morning’s guests agree on is that the exchange will almost certainly decrease the breadth of provider networks. Health Alliance Medical Plans CEO Jeff Ingrum says the penalty — or what we’ll now call a tax — "is not high enough to compel someone to buy insurance.” Healthy consumers will opt out of the exchange, flooding the exchange pool with high-risk buyers. “If you ask an insurance company to exist in a system where they can’t control their risk or plan design,” says Marcus Newman, “the only variable left for them to use is network, so I imagine they will have very thin provider networks, similar to HMOs or even more anemic.”

Newman is the small businesses director for GCG Financial, a 38-state operation that provides health care communications and consulting for over 500 independently owned companies. It’s very rare, Newman says, that after conferring, an employer will choose to buy an insurance plan through an exchange. Newman reminds us that the health insurance an employer buys for his employees is often de facto his own insurance, and that many employers would prefer to retain their current doctors and networks.

Ingrum says that while Health Alliance has not yet settled on a final strategy, they are prepared for the transition. He does expect “narrower networks” as well as a “less rich product design,” and further, that Illinois will end up with a federally facilitated exchange, not a locally managed one. Many opponents to the ACA predict a decrease in the efficiency of the markets if they are no longer locally managed. A press release from the National Federation of Independent Businesses said, “the ruling guarantees that Illinois residents will have their most personal health care decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington and in other states whom they’ve never met and whom they’ll have a hard time influencing in the future.”

One major question small business owners will have in the coming days, Newman predicted, is what the cost of the exchange will be -- a question says nobody will have an answer to for a long time. Newman will be offering what advice he does have for employers as he chats with Richard Steele Friday morning, and we’ll ask Jeff Ingrum for specifics on how insurance companies plan to proceed now that the mandate is here to stay.

Contemplating shared origins after landmark health care ruling

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:00:00 -0500

My impulse, I confess, is to redeem John Roberts after today’s decision on the Affordable Care Act. I want to thank him for his role in letting stand the law that will very likely be the only reason my family and I have decent healthcare in the future. I turn 56 today, with not a few pre-existing conditions; I freelance for work and have no fixed salary; and my son is only seven months old.

I want to say that I knew Roberts would come through in the clutch, that when faced with the kind of life and death choice this decision presented for so many people, that the core values we both learned in the same idyllic Midwestern town were going to come through.

You see, Roberts was raised — like me — in Michigan City, Ind. He grew up in tony Long Beach, in a four bedroom tri-level just a few blocks from Lake Michigan, while I was in an apartment down in the then-much scrappier Sheridan Beach, my neighbors mostly Southerners and Appalachians who’d come up for jobs in the then thriving steel mills. (We later moved to the south side of town, near Barker Junior High, when my parents bought their first home ever.)

Roberts’s dad was an executive at Bethlehem Steel, while many of my friends’ dads worked the night shift. My own parents were public school teachers — my mom, in particular, had a real commitment to the idea of public education as an engine for democracy and mobility.

Roberts went to La Lumiere School, an exclusive boys academy so far in the woods that it looked like a fantasy castle. My pals and I went to public school — to various grade schools, Barker and the sparkling new Rogers High (now Michigan City High School).

I never met John Roberts growing up, though he’s only one year older than me and, frankly, Michigan City is damn small. I think we must have gone to the same Dairy Queen, must have been at the same parties on Stop 2 at least once, maybe even had a drink or two way before our time up at the old Buffalo Lounge across the Michigan state line where the legal drinking age was 18.

I really believe that what John Roberts did today was legally correct, constitutionally solid, but I also think resisting the impulse to exert unprecedented power — and to allow vulnerable, sick people to access this country’s extraordinary healthcare system without going bankrupt in the process — was an act of both courage and decency, both virtues in abundance in our tiny hometown where everybody knew everybody and helped one another in moments of crisis.

I want to have my little gauzy romance with John Roberts. I want to think that though we both got kissed by the same kindness in our hometown, and that it matters.

But, the truth is, I don’t know: This is also the guy who wrote anti-choice memos arguing strategies to overturn Roe v. Wade under the Bush administration, voted for school discipline over free speech in Morse v. Frederick, just two days ago upheld Arizona’s “papers please” law, and has twice sided with the broad precedents of Citizens United, which gives millionaires extraordinary influence on campaigns and elections, making a mockery of the essential idea behind “one man, one vote.”

And to be clear, what Roberts did today was legal hair splitting: He, in fact, agreed with the four conservative justices that the individual mandate did not fall under the interstate commerce clause. What upholds the Affordable Care Act is Roberts’s decision to also agree with the liberals that it is instead a tax, and thus falls within Congressional power to raise taxes for the general welfare.

Conservatives are burning Roberts at the stake today just as minority leader Eric Kantor promises to the take the chief justice at his word that this is a legislative matter and bring the issue of healthcare back to our elected leaders: Kantor has scheduled yet another House vote on the Affordable Care Act immediately after the July 4th holiday. It’s pure theater, of course, since it can’t pass the Senate, and President Obama (who, incidentally, voted with VP Joe Biden not to confirm Roberts for the high court) will veto it while dancing a happy jig. All Kantor wants to do is get everyone on the record before November.

Me, I’m going to enjoy my birthday today, happy that the Supremes have decided to sing me an Obamacare birthday boogaloo. And as I visit our shared hometown this weekend, I’m going to try and hold some of my warm and fuzzy feelings about Roberts, hoping that rather than an aberration, this is the emergence of a new, thoughtful, decent and generous chief justice, just like our neighbors back on the beachfront in Indiana.

Politicians respond to Supreme Court ruling of President Obama's health care law

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:27:00 -0500

As the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act came down Thursday morning, politicians in Illinois and across America began to release their responses. Below are some of their statements, culled from Twitter, email and phone interviews conducted by WBEZ.

"I gave (President Barack Obama) my advice. I told him many times, I said the political cost of doing this, and thank God, for the rest of the country, he didn't listen to me." -- Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel

"We're going to do whatever we can to do to repeal this law, because as Governor Romney said, this law is terrible for America."

“I want to start over. I want to get rid of the whole thing. And then I want Republicans and Democrats to sit down and work on the things we all agree on, which are tort reform, expanding health savings accounts, letting Americans cross state lines to buy insurance. Look, Obamacare goes in the exact opposite direction.” -- Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL-8th)

“Today is a historic day when the Supreme Court declared that the Affordable Care Act and the health security it brings is the law of the land. With President Obama’s leadership, Congress enacted the most significant law in half a century. The law ends insurance industry abuses in the health system, improves Medicare and Medicaid for seniors and the disabled, and covers millions of uninsured Americans. Today, Republicans need to finally put to rest the relentless, partisan attacks against a landmark law that is already working to provide affordable, high-quality care....Today is a day for celebration. Tomorrow we will get back to work ensuring that every American can take advantage of the benefits of Obamacare and have access to affordable, comprehensive and high quality health care. ” -- Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

"While I respect the Court’s decision, the health care law threatens our economic recovery by raising taxes, imposing new regulations and creating a drag on the economy. Congress should repeal the health care law and replace it with common sense, centrist reforms that give Americans the right to buy insurance across state lines and expand coverage without raising taxes, while blocking the government from coming between patients and their doctors." -- Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL)

"I am pleased to see that the Supreme Court has validated the important benefits of this law and look forward to its full implementation #hcr" (Twitter)

“Today the United States Supreme Court told the American People that they do indeed have a right to quality health care. I am pleased that the most important part of the Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate that makes the entire program possible, has been ruled constitutional.

Now the fight begins to make sure that these benefits are not taken away. Please know that I will continue to fight in behalf of the residents of the First Congressional District and our nation." -- Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL)

“Unfortunately, the court’s ruling will have tragic consequences that will spread well beyond the issue of mandatory insurance and health care services. It will drive up health care costs and put yet another financial burden on our already struggling small businesses. We in Illinois will be exploring avenues available for implementing this sweeping law and still providing the greatest options and lowest cost for our families and businesses.” -- State Senator Bill Brady (R-IL)

“This decision means that we can move forward to address the unsustainable increase in health care costs and expand the protection of health insurance coverage to over 30 million Americans – including millions in Illinois.”

“Those who opposed any change in the law and dismissed the constitutionality of this measure were rejected by the actions of Congress and the opinion of the Chief Justice.”

“It is also noteworthy that after two controversial, activist decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, the Chief Justice, in both the Arizona immigration law and the Affordable Care Act cases, appears to be working to reestablish the political neutrality of this court. That is a positive development.” -- Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)

"Constitutionality should not be mistaken for good public policy. Although the Supreme Court today ruled that ObamaCare is constitutional, that does not change the fact that it will drive up the cost of health care, add to our already exploding debt and hurt job creation, including within our vibrant medical device manufacturing sector.

"Standing outside the Supreme Court in our Nation's Capitol today as the ruling was handed down I was reminded of the passion this legislation has ignited among an overwhelming and consistent majority of Hoosiers who have rejected ObamaCare from the very start.

"The stakes are too high. Our economy, our future, depends on us electing Mitt Romney this November." -- Indiana Republican Party State Chairman Eric Holcomb

“While this ruling speaks to the constitutionality of the ACA, the real question is whether the 2010 law makes for good public policy. The American people missed a golden opportunity with health care reform when Congress rushed it through on a partisan basis. I believe that properly confronting the big issues and challenges in this country requires input from both sides and bipartisan support. There are positive provisions in the ACA that should remain as law, but there is more we can do to increase quality and access to care, while reining in skyrocketing costs to the health care system. As health care reform continues to take shape, I am committed to working in a bipartisan way to find positive solutions to the rising costs of health care.” -- Representative Robert Dold (R-IL)

“I applaud today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act.

“In accordance with this historic ruling, the Cook County Health and Hospitals System will continue to seek a 1115 Medicaid Waiver from the work Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This waiver, if approved by the federal government, would permit CCHHS to receive federal reimbursement for the costs of treatment provided to the tens of thousands of our patients who currently have no medical coverage but will gain access to Medicaid on January 1, 2014.

“CCHHS is the foundation of the safety-net health network in northeastern Illinois. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court will allow our system to proactively prepare for Affordable Care Act implementation in 2014.” -- Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle

"There's still so much more that needs to be done but for most families this insures that them the rug is not going to be pulled out from underneath them." -- Representative Mike Quigley (D-IL)

“With or without the unpopular health mandate, the cost of care continues to rise, and it’s up to Republicans and Democrats alike to work across the aisle on solutions. I’m disappointed that the Court did not put a stop to the government overreach. But Washington still has a responsibility to fix polices that are raising costs, hurting job creation, siphoning millions from Medicare, and placing an added layer of bureaucracy between patients and their doctors.

“Under the Administration’s law, too many families will lose the plans they have, and small businesses are afraid to hire new employees. We should go back to work on effective, bipartisan reforms that Democrat leaders ignored, like Association Health Plans for small businesses, allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines, and medical malpractice reform. At the same time, we can and should maintain coverage for pre-existing conditions and young adults under 26.” -- Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL)

Supreme Court upholds requirement that most Americans have health insurance

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:27:00 -0500

Update Thursday June 28 10:05 a.m.

Read the full text of the decision.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul.

The decision means the huge overhaul, still only partly in effect, will proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care. The ruling also hands Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

Breaking with the court's other conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

The justices rejected two of the administration's three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts said.

The court found problems with the law's expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states' entire Medicaid allotment if they don't take part in the law's extension.

The court's four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

"The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding," the dissenters said in a joint statement.

Republican campaign strategists said presidential candidate Mitt Romney will use the court'sruling to continue campaigning against "Obamacare" and attacking the president's signature health care program as a tax increase.

"Obama might have his law, but the GOP has a cause," said veteran campaign adviser Terry Holt. "This promises to galvanize Republican support around a repeal of what could well be called the largest tax increase in American history."

Illinois reacts: Quinn "thrilled" with health care ruiling

Illinois officials must decide how to implement key provisions of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul now that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law's individual insurance requirement.

That includes developing an online insurance marketplace where people and small businesses can comparison shop for insurance beginning in 2014.

Gov. Pat Quinn's administration wouldn't answer questions about Illinois' plans, but aides say he's "thrilled" by the ruling.

A lawmaker who led work on implementing the state's insurance exchange has said Illinoiswon't be able to meet a Nov. 16 deadline to get it set up.

Democratic Rep. Frank Mautino told The Associated Press this week that Illinois must consider a federal-state partnership to meet the requirement.

Illinois officials estimate about 800,000 now-uninsured residents would get public or private health insurance.

Republicans plan to continue campaigning against health care law

Republican campaign strategists say Mitt Romney will use today's Supreme Court ruling to continue campaigning against "Obamacare." They say he will be attacking the president's signature health care program as a tax increase.

Veteran Republican campaign adviser Terry Holt says, "Obama might have his law, but the GOP has a cause." He says the decision will rally Republican support for an appeal of what Holt says "could well be called the largest tax increase in American history."

Romney has said this week that if the law were to be upheld, Americans would need to elect a president who would repeal it.

House Speaker John Boehner says the Supreme Court ruling shows the need to repeal the law. The Ohio Republican says in a statement that the law is hurting the economy by increasing health care costs and making it difficult for small businesses to hire.

He says the court's ruling demands repeal of the entire law.

Boehner say Americans want a common-sense approach to health care. He says Republicans are ready to work with a president who's willing to listen to the people and "will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country 'Obamacare.'"

What's next?

The 2010 health care law will continue phasing in as planned. It's expected to bring coverage to about 30 million uninsured people, so that more than nine in ten eligible Americans will be covered.

Some parts are already in effect: Young adults can stay on their parents' insurance up to age 26. Insurers can't deny coverage to children with health problems. Limits on how much policies will pay out to each person over a lifetime are eliminated. Hundreds of older people already are saving money through improved Medicare prescription benefits. And co-payments for preventive care for all ages have been eliminated.

Starting in 2014, almost everyone will be required to be insured or pay a fine. There are subsidies to help people who can't afford coverage. Most employers will face fines if they don't offer coverage for their workers. Newly created insurance markets will make it easier for individuals and small businesses to buy affordable coverage. And Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income people.

Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging those people more. They won't be able to charge women more, either. During the transition to 2014, a special program for people with pre-existing health problems helps these people get coverage.

An assortment of tax increases, health industry fees and Medicare cuts will help pay for the changes.

Is the issue settled?

Not necessarily. Although the court found it constitutional, the health care law still could be changed by Congress. Romney and Republican congressional candidates are campaigning on promises to repeal it if elected in November.

Some parts of the law are popular, but others — especially the mandate that virtually everyone have insurance coverage — are not.

Also, an estimated 26 million people will remain without health coverage once the law is fully implemented, including illegal immigrants, people who don't sign up and elect to face the fine instead, and those who can't afford it even with the subsidies.

* * * *

Update June 28 8:31 a.m.

Political uncertainty weighed heavy before ruiling

"My guess is they're not sleeping real well at the White House tonight," presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney told supporters Wednesday in northern Virginia.

Anticipation of Thursday's decision could be equally unnerving for Romney, whose opposition to the law has become a central pillar of his campaign.

Neither candidate has any direct influence over the ruling. The court could uphold the health care law, strike it down or deem the requirement that most Americans carry health insurance unconstitutional while retaining other aspects of the law.

The announcement is expected to be followed almost immediately by a barrage of advertisements and fundraising appeals from Democrats and Republicans, all trying to cast the decision in the most advantageous light for their candidates.

The Obama campaign began trying to raise money off the ruling even before it was announced. In a Thursday morning fundraising email with the subject line "Today's Decision," Obama campaign manager Jim Messina told supporters "no matter what, today is an important day to have Barack Obama's back."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also issued a fundraising appeal for a "health care rapid response fund," telling supporters by email Wednesday that, however the court rules, "Democrats are in for a tough fight."

Secrecy has marked each campaign's planning for the critical moment.

Obama is scheduled to be in the Oval Office with Vice President Joe Biden when the ruling is announced. The president is certain to respond to the decision, but his specific plans to do so were unclear. Romney's campaign has refused to disclose the location of a Capitol Hill venue where he will face reporters shortly after the announcement.

It is clear, however, that the Supreme Court's ruling on Obama's sweeping federal health care law will shape the contours of the presidential campaign through the summer and fall. Both Obama and his Republican rival are primed to use the outcome — whatever it is — for political gain.

Obama has expressed confidence the court will uphold his signature legislative initiative. But he won't be shocked if a conservative majority overturns the most controversial provision, those familiar with his thinking say. Romney aides say the Republican candidate will get a political boost if the court strikes down the measure. But they don't want celebrations that could alienate voters who could lose health care benefits as a result of the decision.

The court's ruling could have a far-reaching impact on the nation's health care system. If thelaw is upheld, about 30 million of the 50 million uninsured Americans would get coverage in 2014 when a big expansion begins.

Overturning all or part of the law could leave as uninsured the more than 3 million young adults who gained coverage through a provision allowing them to stay on their parents' insurance up to age 26, according to the Health and Human Services Department. Another 60,000 people who gained coverage through a plan for those with pre-existing conditions may not be able to get coverage elsewhere if the entire law is struck down.

Obama recently has avoided mentioning the impending court ruling directly, but during campaign events this week he has vigorously defended the health care overhaul as critical to the public's health and well-being.

"I think it was the right thing to do. I know it was the right thing to do," he told supporters in Boston.

Romney, who as Massachusetts governor signed a health care law on which the Obama's federal law was modeled, has focused more than usual on the Supreme Court ruling this week. In campaign appearances in Virginia, New Jersey and New York, he offered supporters and donors a preview of his likely response to the decision and said Obama's first term would be essentially wasted if the law is overturned.

If the court upholds the law, Romney told supporters at a northern Virginia electronics manufacturer Wednesday, it's still bad policy. "And that'll mean if I'm elected president we're going to repeal it and replace it," he said.

And if the court strikes down the law, Romney said, "They're going to be doing some of my work for me."

Obama advisers say the Supreme Court showed reasonableness earlier this week in a ruling on an Arizona immigration case, and they see it as a hopeful sign for how the court might rule on health care.

If the court upholds the law, Obama could get an election-year gust of wind at his back, with his vision and leadership validated. If the court strikes down the overhaul, the White House would seek to cast the decision as detrimental to millions of Americans by highlighting popular elements of the law that would disappear, such as preventive care and coverage for young adults on parents' plans.

The Romney campaign has coordinated its response directly with the Republican National Committee and House Republicans, who have agreed not to "spike the ball" — as one Republican put it — should the law be struck down. His campaign worries that an over-celebratory tone may turn off voters affected by the decision.

Indeed, the stakes are high for both candidates. Polling suggests that most Americans oppose the law, but an overwhelming majority want Congress and the president to find a new remedy if it's struck down.

Romney so far has spent little time crafting a comprehensive plan to replace the overhaul. And the Obama campaign already has seized on Romney's opposition to the most popular provisions in the law. For example, Romney would not prevent health care companies from denying coverage to new customers with medical conditions. Nor would he force them to cover young adults on their parents' plans through age 26.

Still, both sides will use it to raise money and motivate supporters. And outside groups are ready to unleash a flood of advertisements following the ruling, including a 16-state, $7 million ad buy from the conservative political action group Americans for Prosperity.

___

AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller contributed to this report.

ACA Ruling