I'm excited about Obamacare passing but I pray that Obama will spend the next four months educating people about the helpful things in the plan: it has already saved seniors over a billion dollars in prescription costs, for instance, and not with taxpayer money; kids up to age 26 will have coverage; and most importantly, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Once hospitals can stop charging high prices for caring for indigents in emergency rooms, I believe health costs will fall. This is a brilliant plan. I say long live Obamacare! -Mary Lindsay Dickinson

Personally, I have three 20-something children and without Obama's health care law, they would not be able to afford health care. I can do so through my job with this law. More broadly, this ruling restores my faith in our democracy and gives me hope for our country's future. Health care should be a right in this great country. -Stanton Green

I have relatives in North Carolina who, after their furniture companies left for Mexico, were left without medical coverage and pensions. They made very little in wages to begin with, so their Social Security payments are abysmal. One has cancer and her doctor has to write to a cancer care facility in New York to provide her care. With this ruling they will be able to afford insurance and get the help they need. Please make it known that if one does not pay the "tax" or penalty, they will not be jailed, and show the small amount they will be fined! Thank you. -Carolyn Cunningham

I am on Social Security disability benefits and Medicare. I live on less than $13,000 a year and receive $16 in food stamps per month. I live in North Carolina in Section 8 housing, and Medicaid already pays my Medicare premiums. At first I was hoping to be covered for co-pays, but with the caveat added that states may or may not expand care, well, I may not benefit one bit. And as it is, I do my best to stay away from doctors and expensive treatments, and I often turn down care I should probably have. What would have been nice is a needs-based Medicare system with the co-pay and premiums based on income and resources for all -- or universal health care coverage along the same lines. -Laura Cody

What everyone, but especially the law's opponents, need to remember is that the status quo is unacceptable. Americans want coverage that's accessible and affordable. Businesses that pay for their employees' coverage need lower costs, and both they and health care providers need certainty about the rules of the road. In that light, Obamacare's opponents should stop fighting the mandate and focus on building a workable system. In Ohio, that means Gov. John Kasich and Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor need to move ahead to design a statewide insurance exchange where consumers can shop for the best deals. In Washington, that means the Obama administration should encourage competition and innovation to fight health care inflation. After two contentious years, the court fight is over. It's time to craft reforms that work.

Improve and perfect. But don't repeal. That should be the mantra for health reform going forward in Washington, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has done away with the legal challenges to the president's landmark law. The old status quo -- under which health care gobbled an ever growing percentage of the economy while the ranks of the uninsured continued to grow -- just isn't acceptable. It was crushingly expensive. And it was immoral.

In Kelo, the high court said government can commandeer your property. Thursday's supine surrender allows government to commandeer your paycheck, too. Many liberal commentators have condemned the Roberts court as activist. If only it were.

The decision gives some 30 million uninsured people hope. It addresses the concerns of those who feared Obamacare was robbing them of freedom by reminding them that Congress certainly does have the constitutional power to levy taxes. It has also helped restore the Supreme Court's damaged reputation as an independent arbiter of the law [...] By the time the people next exercise their judgment, Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats must make the case like never before that this legislation will cut health care costs and not lead to rationing of services or a shortage of doctors. Mitt Romney and the Republicans have to face the fact that the bill is constitutional and come up with an attractive plan that goes beyond just ending it.

What happened yesterday calls for greater urgency, I believe, in the election. I think people recognize that if you want to replace Obamacare, you’ve got to replace President Obama. And the urgency of doing that is something which is galvanizing people across the county. I think many people assumed that the Supreme Court would do the work that was necessary in repealing Obamacare. It did not get that job done. It instead came up with an interpretation to allow it to stand. But the people of America, I think, recognize that this legislation is not right for America. It will cost $500 billion in taxes, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion. The CBO has estimated that up to 20 million people will lose the health insurance they want and own as a result of it. I’m convinced it will cause premiums to go up significantly, and that it will add to the deficit by trillions of dollars. And for those reasons, among others, including the fact that you will now have a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor, I think the American people are going to do the right thing and on Nov. 6, they’re gonna vote to replace Obamacare and replace President Obama. We’re going to get that done.

Without the necessary 60 votes in the Senate for full repeal, Republicans are pledging to use a budget reconciliation bill to undo the ACA. But this process would only apply to the budget-related elements of the law and would thus leave many portions -- including the mandate -- intact.

Mitt Romney, speaking just before noon today, declared that on his first day in office, “I will act to repeal Obamacare.” I think he chose his words carefully. As President, he may indeed “act” to repeal it on Day One, but I don’t believe he will actually be able to overturn the law. If Romney were to win in November, the first matter he’d have to deal with would be the fallout from the so-called fiscal cliff of December 31st, the day when some five hundred billion dollars worth of tax increases and spending reductions take effect, which could put the economy into another recession (if it’s not already in recession by then). This moment would perhaps be Romney’s greatest chance at repeal. Because the fiscal-cliff negotiations will be an enormous fight over the size and scope of the federal government, every government policy will theoretically be open to debate—including, Romney might insist, repeal of the A.C.A.

The ruling may be too late for our household because of the timing. My husband worked 34 years for the local power company. After retiring he developed end stage renal disease. At the time he had over $300,000 remaining in his lifetime insurance plan. My husband went on home dialysis requiring a midday and overnight treatment. We were struggling trying to keep up with his health issues and mine when we received a letter stating my husband had used his lifetime benefits. We reviewed invoices and determined that the home dialysis cost over $20,000 per month in addition to the oral medications. We sincerely regret the Affordable Care Act had not been enacted sooner. Coming from a large family, I am grateful for a niece who will now have insurance coverage. She has had asthma from the time she was a toddler. About four years ago I learned she had tried to "ride out" asthma attack because she did not have insurance or medication. My sister used home remedies and a friend borrowed medication from a relative. I began praying for the health care program when Senator Kennedy was alive and trying to help President Obama get it passed because of what had happened to my niece. She is now in school to become an x-ray technician and will then have medical insurance. My fear has been what happens if she has an attack before then? -- Irma Jenkins

This Supreme Court decision just sealed the deal for me to leave the country! This decision is the last straw for me, I will be moving from this country. Not because the Supreme Court leans so right wing but because the Democratic Party and many of the so-called progressive citizens in the U.S. are so dang stupid! I can't tolerate the ignorance on the left any longer! Obamacare is for the most part a huge gift to Big Pharma and Big Insurance period -- end of story! Mandated customers will raise the insurance rates just like it did in Massachusetts! We do not have to argue or speculate, all we have to do is take a truly objective look at what has happened in Massachusetts to all sectors of the socioeconomic strata! Insurance rates have gone up in Massachusetts -- not everyone can afford insurance and those numbers are growing every day. More importantly not everyone can even afford to go to the doctor even though they have been forced to buy insurance, so they are not actually getting health care! ... If we had not tolerated anything less than single payer health care, then we all would be covered for the real emergency stuff that bankrupts millions, the kind of stuff that Western medicine is good at, attaching your legs back on when they are severed in an auto accident or starting your heart back up if you are struck by lightening -- that kind of stuff. We in America do emergency care very well and we all deserve that kind of care when we are really struck down! But Western medicine sucks at keeping us well and managing acute low grade or chronic diseases, and we all deserve the freedom to go to alternative practitioners and get it paid for by our single payer health care coverage! I am leaving, I am going to an intelligent and progressive country where they actually understand when they are being chumped! -- Lora Chamberlain

Makes a world of sense as we have two adult children out of college (early twenties). Our daughter had a health emergency last February that would have cost her well over $20K (two night stay, emergency room care). As a nanny, working three days a week and going to grad school, 20K would have destroyed her earning power for a long time. As for pre-existing conditions, a relative has had multiple sclerosis for 20-plus years. Her husband never could switch jobs because even if it was an increase in pay/responsibility, the new company’s insurance wouldn’t cover her health bills. It’s nice to think we’re trying to be progressive. I was prepared for the worst. -- Diane Andrick

I am delighted with the overall decision of the supreme court today. I am a small business owner and a liberal. As an aging baby boomer (60) I will only be affected for a few more years, however I am a healthcare provider also. I have seen the results of our failed healthcare system for almost three decades now. Our system offers wonderful care for certain segments of society (those who have good insurance) and for certain kinds of medical problems (cancer, heart disease, the terminally ill, acute and severe injuries, etc.). For millions of others the promise of healthcare is remains out of reach. The Affordable Care Act has many flaws. It carries all the scars of a failed attempt to compromise two diametrically opposed views of how to solve a very complex social/political dilemma. As a result no one was pleased with the outcome. I favored a single payer system as did most progressives. What we have is better than the conservative position of do nothing. It is a flawed step in the right direction and I applaud the president for having the courage and tenacity to stay with it to the bitter end. The ACA will not solve many complex systemic problems with our healthcare system, but it will provide a remedy for many of its most immoral consequences. A long time ago conservatives predicted that Medicare would turn us into a socialist state. One of the spokesmen for that position was conservative icon Ronald Reagan. We have short and selective memory. The ACA and its legislative descendants will someday be as accepted and untouchable as Medicare and Social Security. Conservative attacks on the basic rationale behind the ACA are on the wrong side of history just as surely as those who oppose gay marriage and other social reforms granting basic rights to all or citizens have been. Health care should be basic right, not a commodity subject to the demands and profit goals of the marketplace. The ACA doesn't accomplish that goal, but it moves us closer. -- Jim Snowden

This is great for our family ... I think. We just need all provisions of the Act to come into being now. This phased roll-out is killing us financially. I am a self-employed consultant so I have to pay for my own private Blue Cross Blue Shield policy for me and my two-year-old daughter. When the bill was initially passed, our rates went through the roof. As I understand it this was because insurers were immediately required to accept people with pre-existing conditions in addition to a couple of other very expensive new requirements. But these new regulations came into play years before the mandate was to take effect, which I understand is the only way the rest of the bill is economically viable. So the insurance companies raised rates to cover these massive extra costs (no surprise there). How could the Obama administration not have predicted this? Or maybe they did but just saw it as an unfortunate political reality. Regardless, it really sucks. I only hope that rates come down once the mandate kicks in and the insurers books are flooded with new premiums (dare I be so naive). Or better yet maybe I can get into one of those private insurance pools that are supposed to be available soon, though I admit I really don't know anything about those yet. Bottom line: I'm very happy about the law and this ruling in theory as it will surely give many more people access to health care. But whether this law is the answer to our country's health insurance problems we won't know for quite a while. -- Brian Zellmer

"That the law was largely upheld allows Obama the miraculous opportunity to get right what he screwed up before and after the bill was passed: a fresh chance to explain to voters exactly what this bill is and what is good about it."

In all, about $235 million has been spent on ads attacking the law since its passage in March 2010, according to a recent survey by Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. Only $69 million has been spent on advertising supporting it.

The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy. The Court has failed to do its duty.

I'm saved! The Affordable Care Act is of utmost importance to my survival as a contributing member of society. I am uninsurable. Even before my accident last September, in the ultimate extreme of good health, I could not qualify for insurance that wasn't a group plan through my employers. Thirteen years ago, I had severe bone marrow and kidney diseases. I was told I was terminal. Fortunately, that prediction was wrong. Not only did I recover, but I went on to give up my car for a bicycle, riding hundreds of miles (probably thousands) in the Colorado Rockies. I was the epitome of health. Then, disaster struck. While riding on Mount Evans, the highest paved road in North America, high winds pushed me over the side of the mountain. I fell 30 feet, tumbling to the granite boulders below. Had two cyclists from Switzerland not found me, I most likely would have died. I had fractured 9 vertebrae, shattered my rib cage, shattered my right shoulder blade, punctured both lungs, and my left kidney and spleen were lacerated so badly that my doctors seriously considered removing them. I later had to have four vertebrae in my neck fused in order to preserve, and hopefully recover, my failing use of my left arm and hand. I still may require further spinal surgery, as I remain in severe pain. In total, three vertebrae in my neck -- including two that would have meant instant death had they been displaced -- and six in my upper back were fractured. Without my helmet, I'd have certainly died. I've been on medical leave ever since my accident. I've had to go onto COBRA for my insurance plan. I've been fighting with Social Security and the state for disability benefits. I've lived in fear for what my future holds for me, and in fear that without the federal mandate, I could be without insurance, out of luck, and disabled for the rest of my life. Yet there's hope. I'm walking. I've regained some use of my left arm. I've even been back on my bicycle a few times. -Belinda Williams

The ACA has already positively affected my family. I have a son who (at the time) was 24. I was (and am) unemployed and was forced to pay out-of-pocket for health insurance for my son. He plays soccer overseas, so the risk of him being uninsured and getting injured was too high a risk to chance. The monthly expense was also quite high. When the portion of the ACA kicked in regarding uninsured children being eligible up to age 26 to be covered under their parent's employer health insurance, we were able to sign him up for coverage under his step-father's employer insurance plan. Insurance costs: cut in half! He will be 26 in February 2013, and now with the Supreme Court ruling (and hopefully, the reelection of the president), he will be able to purchase affordable health care when the time comes. -Elizabeth Swink

I am thrilled and relieved that the law was upheld. I have a 19-year-old daughter who is not able to be a full-time student at this time due to a pre-existing condition that would have made it very difficult for her to get insurance. I have had many sleepless nights worrying about what would happen if the law was struck down and she lost the ability to be covered until the age of 26 on our health insurance and the protection that, when she does need her own insurance, she will not be discriminated against. I intend to work hard to protect this law. I do not want our country to continue to allow people to die because they cannot purchase health insurance once they are ill. -Theresa Glennon

In reading Dawn Garcynaski's email to you, I realized that this is exactly why the bill is unpopular. Everything she says is wrong: If it is true that she can barely afford to keep a roof over her head (unless it's a 500K+ Mcmansion), she will not pay a penalty for not having insurance -- the cut-off is around $80K a year or higher. She will receive huge subsidies from the government to purchase care, it will not cost her $500 to $700 a month. This shows how misinformed the general public is about the law. While it's not perfect, its faults have been exaggerated and misconstrued. It's no wonder when the key provisions are pointed out separately, they all receive favorable ratings in the 70 percent plus. And with the mandate, the Democrats messed up: they should have labeled it a "stop people from free loading off the system and casting YOU money fee." I'm pretty sure that'd be viewed favorably, too. -David Storm

I only wish that this law was in place a decade ago. I am self-employed. A decade ago I had a very thin melanoma removed. There it was, the pre-existing condition. I was completely uninsurable by any other company and had no choice but to accept being pushed into higher risk pools, eventually paying high rates for huge deductibles and no coverage at all for routine and diagnostic care. Recommended preventative actions, like a colonoscopy at age 50, were delayed because we couldn't afford their cost and also because we were a little worried that if they found something, it would be another pre-existing condition that would push us into an even more unaffordable risk bracket. We knew it was a gamble, but frankly we couldn't afford the safe route. Well, the gamble went bad. My spouse was diagnosed a little over a year ago with Stage 4 colorectal cancer. I know one cannot really know how things might have otherwise turned out, but I do know that the last decade would have been very different if this law was passed a decade ago. I would not have seen myself become locked into one carrier because of a pre-existing condition. I would not have seen my rates skyrocket as a result. Basic long-term, cost-effective preventative measures would have been covered. And we might have found my spouse's cancer at a curable stage. So I strongly believe that, since my life would have been so much better if this law had been in place a decade ago, coming decades will be better for so many other people. -Daniel Nolte

With health care reform free to move forward, there is some good news and some bad news for young people. Young adults comprise the largest portion of the uninsured. This is partly because they make less money at the start of their careers, and so often forgo the purchase health insurance if they tend to be healthy and expect not to need such coverage any time soon. Starting in 2014, though, young adults will be required to purchase health insurance or face a penalty from the federal government. They can also opt to remain on their parents' insurance plans until they reach the age of 26.

Scalia refers to Ginsburg's concurrence -- agreeing with the Court that the mandate stands, but for different reasons than the opinion of the Court expresses -- not as a concurrence, but as a "dissent": Our test's premise of regulated activity is not invented out of whole cloth, but rests upon the Constitution's requirement that it be commerce which is regulated. If all inactivity affecting commerce is commerce, commerce is everything. Ultimately the dissent is driven to saying that there is really no difference between action and inaction, ante, at 26, a proposition that has never recommended itself, neither to the law nor to common sense...

When the Scalia opinion became the Scalia dissent, Thomas forgot to change the first "joint opinion" to "joint dissent" -- although he did change the second "joint opinion" to "joint dissent".

"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles."

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform law was surprising at least partly because a financial market had predicted that the opposite would happen, and financial markets can do no wrong. Crowds are wise. Markets are efficient. Not so much, however, on the prediction market Intrade, where traders earlier this month assigned a nearly 80 percent chance that the Supreme Court would declare unconstitutional the health-care law's mandate that people buy health insurance. That had fallen to about 70 percent just before this morning's ruling, which is still a relatively sure thing. But the individual mandate was of course upheld, meaning a lot of people making bets against it lost some money today. The contract price for betting on a mandate reversal has tumbled 97 percent today on Intrade.

Hope you're happy with yourself, Supreme Court. You just killed America's economy. That was the snap conclusion CNBC and Fox Business Network reached in the minutes following the Supreme Court's surprising decision to uphold President Obama's signature health-care reform law. [...] But let's take a look at just how terribly damaging this ruling actually was to the stock market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down about 100 points at 10:00 a.m. ET, minutes before the court's ruling was announced. It was down about 89 points at 10:20 a.m. ET, after most of the world (excluding CNN and Fox News) realized the court had upheld health care reform. By 10:40, it is true, when CNBC was interviewing Barry Knapp, the Dow was down to its worst levels of the day, off by nearly 160 points. But it has since "rebounded," if you can call it that, to a 120-point decline. That's not an awful lot of movement for a fairly surprising decision that will supposedly destroy the economy. And in any event there is no surer way to make an idiot of yourself than in trying to hang great significance on minute-by-minute moves in the stock market.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said Thursday that the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law means progressive lawmakers won't be pushing for a single-payer option anymore, though the concept will live on in their minds. The idea of a single-payer option, such as a Medicare-for-all approach to health care, will continue to be "a fundamental political point that we all support," said Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "But the reality of what just happened today probably puts the emphasis on making the law work as opposed to trying to get a new plan."

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, but not before rejecting the government's main argument -- that it was valid under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts bluntly insisted that the clause does not vest Congress with "police powers … to regulate an individual from cradle to grave." It also explicitly embraced the conservative argument regarding health care and broccoli.

The court’s decision will be dissected today by legal scholars, health care experts, sharp-tonged commentators and ordinary Americans. But what may not be so widely discussed or understood is the sweeping effect that the court’s decision will likely have on minority health in the United States, according to health care economists and policy analysts. That broad benefit to minorities is a point the Obama administration itself has made -- though somewhat infrequently -- and one that's likely to be invoked more often after the favorable ruling, as the presidential election fight intensifies. Black and Latino Americans are expected to see substantial gains in insurance coverage under the ACA. The bill was designed to offer the greatest assistance to those with low and moderate incomes. And with income, race and ethnicity still closely linked in the United States, just over 48 percent of the nearly 24 million people likely to gain health insurance as the law’s provisions are implemented across the country will be people of color, according to a May Urban Institute analysis.

In a surprise move, Tea Party godfather Rick Santelli said conservatives should respect the Supreme Court's decision on health care. "You know what, the Supreme Court did what it thought best. I believe in that process, whether I agree with it or not," said Rick Santelli, CNBC's on-air editor, on CNBC on Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional. "I challenge the conservatives in Congress to take this decision with respect. With respect!"

In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present. He immediately apologized.

“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."

The Obama Administration sold the individual mandate again and again with the argument that it was not a tax. Then they argued before the Supreme Court that it was a tax, because that was the only way to defend it constitutionally. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito clearly saw through this exercise in semantics, and they deserve our thanks for their commitment to the Constitution and the law in their dissent. The best that can be said for Chief Justice Roberts, in voting to uphold the law, is that he rejected the administration’s argument that the mandate was permitted by the commerce clause. That said, it should never have been the job of the Supreme Court to clean up a terrible piece of legislation perpetrated by Congress and the White House. ObamaCare may have been declared constitutional by five justices – although not in the manner the White House sold it, which is telling – but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a horrible law that will bankrupt this country, explode health care costs and diminish the quality of care throughout this nation. Government tyranny has been slowed, but not stopped. What today’s ruling means is that anything government can call a tax, it has the power to do. Regardless of the semantics, we are subjected to government tyranny.

All The U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Obama administration’s health care law was going to be a huge story. The decision was also likely to be complex. Our goal, as always: get the facts and get them out quickly. For weeks, Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee and the experienced SCOTUS team had prepared. Reporter Mark Sherman talked with legal analysts about possible scenarios and the legal arguments that might prevail. Sally, Mark and Mark’s editor, Mike Sniffen, met frequently to discuss all the different ways the court might rule and how in each of those possible scenarios, we would write NewsAlerts that were accurate and easily understood by average people. After that, it was going to come down to Mark reading and deciphering the decision itself, all the clauses and complicated language. This morning, he was at the Supreme Court holding an open phone line back to Mike and desk editor Merrill Hartson, whose hands hovered above the keyboard, ready to fill in the blank FLASH on his screen. Mark read the decision, talked to Mike and Merrill and at 10:07 a.m. this NewsAlert moved: WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court upholds Obama law's requirement that most Americans have health insurance. Then they kept working, explaining the court’s conclusions, how each justice voted and why, and so on. As the day unfolds, AP and other news outlets will deliver extensive stories explaining the decision and its impact on American life, business and the current presidential campaign. That coverage will be rich, nuanced and informed. But we should all be especially proud that that the AP’s coverage will be built on accurate and clear first word. Once again, the enduring lesson prevails: Expertise and preparation are what make us fast and accurate. Please join me in saluting Mark, Mike, Sally and the entire team involved in today’s coverage. Kathleen

Mitt Romney had an opportunity to rise to the occasion today and tell the American people specifically how he would move the nation forward on health care and ensure people get the care they need. Yet, once again, he squandered that opportunity. Instead of explaining how he would ensure costs don't go up and health benefits are protected, Romney promised to repeal the President's health reform law and take America back to the same old political battles of the past. He is completely unmoved by what that would do to millions of middle-class families, women, seniors and young Americans who are today benefiting from the law.

The dissent tosses out the entire health care law, dismissing the case for it as "feeble" and a "vast judicial overreach." It argues that "against a mountain of evidence," its backers offer only the "flimsiest of indications to the contrary." Four of the five Republican appointees on the Court agreed with this interpretation, and it would have carried the day if Chief Justice John Roberts had joined them. Had he done so, the "entire statute" -- meaning the entire law, from beginning to end -- would have been invalidated, including provisions that had already gone into effect.

Thursday's decision upholding the law will have a profound effect on millions of women that extends far beyond free birth control. Beginning in August, woman of all income brackets will be able to obtain contraception, annual well-woman visits, screenings for sexually transmitted infections and gestational diabetes, breastfeeding support and supplies, and domestic violence screenings without any co-pays or deductibles. Currently, 62 percent of women buying health insurance in the individual market do not have maternity coverage, but under the health care law law, 8.7 million more women will gain that coverage starting in 2014.

Speaking on Capitol Hill shortly after the Supreme Court's historic decision, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the fact that health care reform was upheld as constitutional on Thursday makes it more urgent than ever for the American people to vote President Barack Obama out of office in November. "If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama," Romney said.

"I feel like I'm going to cry. I'm so relieved right now," said Josephson, 39, who lives in Jacksonville, Fla. Her 6-year-old son, Wesley, has a pre-existing medical condition that made it impossible for the family to find health insurance for him until the law passed in 2010. "It's so hard when you're a parent and you see your child needs help and you can't even purchase health insurance for them," said Josephson, after learning of the court's ruling from a reporter while getting her hair styled.

The president, for his part, used his address to detail the policy prescriptions within the law -- an implicit recognition that the administration has done a poor job selling it to date. "It should be pretty clear that I didn't do this because it's good politics," Obama said. "I did it because it's good for the country." The president also addressed the court's decision to uphold the most controversial component of the bill, the individual mandate, arguing that it was essential to making the rest of the reforms work. He acknowledged that he himself had once opposed the idea, only to come around. The president added that conservatives, including Romney, had supported the concept in the past.

The biggest and most obvious remaining hurdle for the ACA is that if Mitt Romney wins and Republicans wind up with unified control of Congress, there’s every possibility that he law could still be entirely repealed. But even if that doesn’t happen: what remains is a lot of trench warfare. The Court supplied the states with even more room to fight against reform than they already had (increasing their options on the Medicaid expansion portion of the law). Insurance companies and other interest groups can appeal to regulators in the executive branch or to Congress to defeat specific provisions they don’t like — and that hasn’t changed today. Those two things could, together, wind up undermining the law, especially under a President Romney, even if the votes aren’t there for full repeal.

On the other side of the ledger are the political costs that Obama has paid. It's impossible to say what his approval ratings would look like if he hadn't tried health care, but we know that the headlong rush into its gaping jaws didn't help matters. Then there's the shelving of meaningful action on climate change and immigration—both thorny but neither as earth-movingly difficult as health care—the rapid burn-off of goodwill among his would-be allies on the Hill and the evaporation of any last shred of bipartisanship in Washington. Add in the pain of losing the House in a seismic 2010 wave election, which reduced the president's governing coalition. Don't forget the ending of a lot of real people's legislative careers, particularly those hardy few who walked the plank and changed their no votes to yesses. Let's go ahead and include the tarnishing of the vaunted brand by pulling an about-face on "putting the negotiations on C-SPAN" and allegedly hammering out agreements with such bogeymen as Big Pharma under cover of secrecy. (Whatever happened, public-facing spokesmen like me were, thankfully, kept totally in the dark.) And rearing over all of this, of course, is the question of whether it will cost Obama a second term, even as it is upheld.

My name is Thyra Lowe and I am a democrat and a small business owner of two businesses -- one consulting services and the other an on-line retail store. I am launching the latter next week. I have been successful in the first (and hope to be in the second) but could not expand my business -- by adding employees and my husband for fear of losing our very good health insurance coverage that my husband receives as a government worker. With two children under four and two pre-existing conditions, we simply would not be able to afford private coverage on the open health insurance market. Now, with the health exchanges we can make decisions as a family and business owner to determine whether my husband can leave his job and join me in growing our businesses to compete more heavily in the market, knowing that we don't have to provide health coverage for our employees as their only option. This day is a joyous first step. Hopefully, in future iterations of the ACA, we can have an opportunity to buy into the Medicaid system (single payer) and allow employers both large and small to be unburdened from paying for their employees' health. That alone would be a job creating engine -- a small surcharge paid for each employee by business to support a single-payer system, along with each individual in the country contributing through tax dollars -- will lower the cost of care, raise access to care to 100 percent and increase care quality for all. This, coupled with a comprehensive immigration reform act, would allow millions of undocumented workers to pay taxes into the system and therefore, pay for their own care (while simultaneously eliminating uncompensated care costs). Limiting the system to citizens, legal residents, visa holders, temporary residents (both short-term visa and temporary residents would be on a limited basis with a pay-in provision) would keep us from falling into the perils that France has suffered with its completely open system. I now can join in fully as a job creator and enjoy the opportunity to exercise the "American Dream" fully. This truly is a momentous day. -Thyra Lowe

I'm most concerned about the hemming-in of the extended Medicaid coverage. Not being able to force states to participate in covering those who need it most will be a detriment to the country as a whole. Why should a state be able to deny coverage to the poor based on politics? The federal government should be able to impose a penalty on states who refuse to cover those who need it. -Nick Fox

I support a public option. Although I consider myself a Progressive, I was never comfortable with the individual mandate and never believed that it could be justified by the Commerce Clause. I'm very concerned about finding that Congress' power to compel the purchase of an insurance policy is derived from its power to tax. Using the power to tax and the Commerce Clause, there are now no limits to what Congress may do. I find it odd that Congress can compel me to purchase something from a private company. What's also distressing is that almost all health care plans contain arbitration clauses that compel one to arbitrate a dispute with the insurer, instead of going to court, thereby forcing the insured (me and you) to surrender our constitutional right to a jury trial in civil disputes. Hence, by compelling us to purchase health insurance, Congress is also taking away our right to a jury trial. -Joseph Di Monda

I work in insurance, and I know how astronomically high health care has soared since the inception of this "law" and how dramatically the services covered have evaporated. This will come down to high-deductible plans where families will be forced to purchase coverage for around $500 to $700 per month. (Who has that kind of extra money laying around? I don't!) And for that money they will have to meet a $10,000 to $12,000 deductible before these benefits even kick in. Doing the math here that $16,000 to $20,000 a year spent out of pocket for a family before a single bit of insurance benefits kick in. How is this affordable? How is it legal? This is the sort of thing we need protection against! Sadly, this has also just made the American worker too expensive for employers to maintain. I don't understand it: All of these officials are sent to Washington, D.C., to govern over the welfare of the people and speak on their behalf, but they are doing anything but that. The problems with the health care system don't lie in the lack of access, but in the lack of regulation! Why are these premiums so inflated? Why do they continue to soar unchecked? The majority of Americans made it clear they don't want this law ... but it was passed. Whose interests are they really protecting in Washington? In an economy where poverty is on the rise, record foreclosures, jobless rates staying high, we have strayed from a government for and by the people to for and by the corporations. I for one will observe civil disobedience. I can't afford health care, I barely make enough money to keep a roof over my head ... and I refuse to pay the fines as well. Perhaps I will look into leaving the new "Rome" before it caves in all around us. This country is headed on a one-way track for disaster, and our government is driving the train. -Dawn Garcynski

What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care plan on Thursday, in a 5-4 decision. The President's health care plan, considered to be a key part of his domestic agenda, has been opposed by Republicans and many right-wing Americans. Many Americans who were upset at the Supreme Court decision took to Twitter to voice their anger. Weirdly enough, many Americans tweeted about 'moving to Canada' to escape socialized medicine. "I'm moving to Canada, the United States is entirely too socialist," tweets @wallyweldon.

This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power.

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if "the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883) . Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those lim- its may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176. The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22. Pp. 31–32.

[A]nalysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20–37.

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 45–58.

In a surprise decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. You will hear a lot of commentary from legal and policy experts in the next few weeks about this decision, but this post is about what the Court action means for YOU personally. The outcry from the right will be deafening, and there will be attempts by the House Republicans between now and November to take out sections of the law, although the Senate Democratic majority is not likely to approve any of those actions. Obviously, if the Republicans win the presidency and the Senate in November, the ACA may not survive to its full 2014 implementation date. Now is the time to acquaint yourself with what the health reform law really means to you -- while you still have it.

Is this a great country or what? Not because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the overall scheme of the president's health care law. That is an ordinary question, no matter how much money was at stake. It is a great country because the workings of our carefully wrought system of government are not predicated on punditry, predictions or polls. Defying the expectations, Justice John Roberts -- said to be a relentless conservative activist -- joined the court's "liberal wing" in saving the law by grounding the "individual mandate" not in the power of Congress to regulate commerce, but in its taxing power. As I suggested yesterday, the court essentially said that Congress could not require people to buy something in the private economy, but they could fine them if they didn't. The court found that power to fine, in the taxing power of Article I. Now the president will have to figure out a way to make the fines in the law -- which are weak and toothless -- real.

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

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

The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act. The 5-4 majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress' commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the majority.

House Republican leaders know that immediately after the Supreme Court rules on the health care law Thursday, they'll need to answer questions about what happens next on Capitol Hill -- and they're ready.

[T]he Court is going to decide a big case on affirmative action in college admissions, probably will hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, and will likely decide the Constitutionality of an important part of the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court. He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

The justices, of course, know, having officially voted on the results the same week they heard arguments. But they are not the only ones in the loop: Each of the nine justices has four clerks who know not only how their justice voted but also how the other justices stand because these clerks help research and craft the majority opinions and dissents that are circulated for justices to sign if they agree. In addition these 45 people surely in the know, there are an assorted number of secretaries, aides, security guards, janitors, support staff and family members keenly attuned to the inner workings of the Supreme Court’s upper floors where the justices keep their chambers.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed Wednesday that Republicans would repeal whatever parts of health care reform remain standing following Thursday's highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling -- even if doing so would jeopardize insurance coverage for thousands of people. "We've made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what's left of it," Boehner said.

Valerie Jarrett, the White House senior adviser and a member of the Obamas' inner circle, sat down with a group of African-American journalists in New Orleans last Saturday to discuss the White House's policy agenda. The question that came up over and over was about what the White House planned to do if the Supreme Court repealed all or part of the president's health care law. Barrett said that the White House was preparing for different outcomes, but was coy when pressed for specifics. "You know what, right now ... we have a robust legislative agenda," she said. "When the Supreme Court rules, we'll have plenty of time to talk about what happens afterward.

If you are cheating on a spouse, enjoying a too cozy relationship with someone, have a tax problem, double dipping in your campaign fund or anything else that is politically explosive and soon to get out and torpedo your career … go public with it tomorrow at exactly 10 am.

8:49 Tom: I’ll give you a sense of our preparations. The liveblog ordinarily has 2 people: our reporter, Lyle; and our editor, Amy. Today, we have a team of 7 people: Lyle, four lawyer-bloggers (including Amy), and two staff. Then there are two different technical teams. 8:49 Tom: We ordinary run on one Internet server. Today, we are running on 6 that are geographically dispersed, and which are provided by two different companies for redundancy. [...] 8:50 Tom: We hired developers to rewrite very significant parts of the code underlying the blog, then had a second team do it again. 8:51 Tom: The effort to get the decision out, and get it right, will cost us roughly $25,000 for the 20 minutes between 10:15 and 10:35am, and mostly for the first 30 seconds or so

Sen. Mike Lee predicted that the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate in President Barack Obama’s health care law. “This is something that for most Americans, offends their basic sense of freedom and this is not something they want,” the Utah Republican said Thursday morning on CNN’s “Starting Point.” “I think the justices also understand this doesn’t fall comfortably within any of Congress’s enumerated powers.”

Whatever happens at the Supreme Court today, three things will be just as true tomorrow as they are right at this moment.

The White House has kept its preparations for the Supreme Court’s decision on President Barack Obama’s health care law close to the vest. Mr. Obama, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday, the West Wing is merely “waiting for an opinion, a decision, and we’ll assess.” But Mr. Obama has been doing more than sitting back and waiting. The president has three separate speeches prepared in anticipation of the ruling on his signature legislative achievement, a person familiar with them said.

From: Wright, Lane
Sent: Tue 6/19/2012 5:02 PM
To: 'rob.nichols@governor.ohio.gov'
Cc: Sunburst
Subject: Obamacare Information Rob, Per your request, here’s some information to supplement our previous conversation -- what we’re now saying. Thanks, Lane Healthcare Law If overturned: Focus on contrast between Federal Government vs. Florida: · With national economy in shambles, federal government wasted resources, time and energy trying to implement a massive social program that injected nothing but uncertainty and doubt. · Squandered any chance of fixing our economy · Meanwhile, here in Florida, we focused energy, time and resources on fixing the economy · The difference is dramatic. National economy is anemic. Florida has had 11 straight months of improving unemployment Where do we go from here? · The only problem with our health care system is rapidly rising costs · The US has one of the best health care systems in the world; we just have to make it more affordable. · To fix it, there are four pillars of reform o Increased Consumer choice o Increased provider competition o Increased provider accountability and price transparency o Increased personal responsibility

The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Presiden't Obama's health care law Monday, pushing the announcement of the decision to Thursday morning. The decision is among the most closely watched in decades. As a political matter, the case tests Obama's signature achievement as president, the Affordable Care Act.

"In another important victory for freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has reversed the Montana Supreme Court, upholding First Amendment free speech rights that were set out in Citizens United. As I pointed out in an amicus brief that I filed in the Montana case, a review of Federal Election Commission records of independent spending supporting the eight Republican presidential candidates earlier this year showed only minimal corporate involvement in the 2012 election cycle. Not one Fortune 100 company contributed a cent to any of the eight Republican Super PACs, as of the end of March, according to FEC records. The records also showed that of the $96 million contributed to the eight Super PACs through March 31, an overwhelming 86.32 percent of that money came from individuals while only 13.68 percent came from corporations and 0.81 percent from public companies. Clearly, the much predicted corporate tsunami that critics of Citizens United warned about simply did not occur."

The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration law, upholding the "papers please" provision. Civil rights groups argue the latter measure, a centerpiece of S.B. 1070, invites racial profiling.

The Supreme Court on Monday abolished the sentence of life without parole for juveniles convicted of murder when they were 14 or younger.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Montana's century-old limits on corporate political spending, putting an end to the Treasure State's resistance to Citizens United and effectively expanding that controversial ruling to the state and local elections.

A timely new study, based on an impressively detailed review of the transcripts and audio recordings of the 6 hours, 14 minutes and 7 seconds of arguments in the case, revealed an exceptionally garrulous and jocular bench. Justice Stephen G. Breyer alone spoke for more than half an hour, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor was close behind, at just 30 seconds shy of a half-hour, according to the study, which was conducted by Ryan A. Malphurs, a litigation consultant, and L. Hailey Drescher, a graduate student at the University of North Texas. Collectively, the justices spoke for 162 minutes, or 43 percent of the time. It does not take much to get a laugh at the Supreme Court, and the spectators in the courtroom were particularly generous during the health care arguments. There were 63 episodes of public laughter, or about 10 laughs per hour.

• Unless the Court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of ObamaCare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

• Republicans will not repeat the Democrats' mistakes. We won’t rush to pass a massive bill the American people don’t support.

• Health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people. The number-one health care concern of families and small business is the cost of health care, and Republicans' health care reforms will lower costs.

• Women make approximately 80 percent of the health care decisions made for their families. Republican health care reforms will ensure families and doctors make health care decisions -- not Washington.

• We want families to be able to make their own choices in health care, visit the doctor of their choosing, and receive the health care they and their doctor feel is best. Those decisions shouldn't be made by Washington.

"Republicans are down the line opposed to the individual mandate, but there's an internal debate about what to do if the Court also overturns the main insurance regulations. A sizable cargo cult within the GOP wants to preserve some Affordable Care Act provisions and favors passing stand-alone bills reinstating them if necessary. The idea circulating is that the Republican Party should consider a 'keep the good stuff' approach. "In other words, one of the first Republican moves amid an historic constitutional ruling and thunderclap political victory would be the remarkable feat of protecting the entitlement they've now spent years castigating and promising to repeal in toto. Concessions on this scale make zero political sense—never mind the economics, which are much worse."

--Top 10 markets for anti-Obama-plan spending: Orlando, $8.2M; Philadelphia, $7.9M; Tampa, $7.8M; Pittsburgh, $7.6M; Denver, $7.3M; Cleveland, $5.9M; Boston, $5.5M; D.C., $4.7M; Phoenix, $4.5M; Las Vegas, $4.4M --Top 10 anti-Obama-plan spenders: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, $27.0M; Crossroads GPS, $18.3M; 60 Plus Association, $9.6M; American Action Network, $9.0M; NRCC, $8.6M; American Crossroads, $6.0M; Americans for Prosperity,$5.9M; Pat Toomey, $5.6M; NRSC, $5.0M; Citizens Against Government Waste, $4.9M --Top 10 markets for pro-Obama-plan spending: national network, $30.4M; national cable, $15.6M; Los Angeles, $4.9M; San Francisco, $1.2M; Philadelphia, $1.0M; Las Vegas, $904K; Sacramento, $678K; Fresno, $646K; Milwaukee, $637K; Orlando, $636K; Little Rock, $602K; San Diego, $580K --Top 10 pro-Obama-plan spenders: Dept. of Health and Human Services, $47.4M; California Endowment, $8.2M; Americans for Stable Quality Care, $2.1M; Joe Sestak, $1.3M; American Health Association, $1.1M; Health Information Campaign, $902K; Obama campaign, $708K; Russ Feingold, $658K; Blanche Lincoln, $603K; DNC, $546K

There is a growing number of Republicans vowing to keep the "slacker mandate" in place, forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for the children of customers up until such "children" reach age 26. Speaking as a young adult under this age threshold, it is insulting that the federal government treats people in their mid-20s as children. Not only do some Republicans wish to keep the slacker mandate, but they think it doesn't go far enough. Republican Congressman Steve Stivers wants to one-up Obama by expanding the slacker mandate to cover “kids” up to age 31. Come on, now. There is nothing in ObamaCare that is worth saving. Every single provision in the massive 2,801 page bill infringes on the liberty of all Americans. The entire law should be thrown out—no exceptions. ObamaCare should go down in the history books as a big mistake that will never be repeated.

As the justices enter what is looking like their final week, President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and Arizona's immigration law top the list of undecided cases. The court also still has to decide cases on lying about military medals, juvenile sentencing and real estate kickbacks. Monday is the court's last scheduled meeting until the fall, but it is unlikely to be the final session. As the justices leave the bench, Marshal Pamela Talkin will announce the court's next meeting.

The nine Supreme Court justices and more than three dozen other people have kept quiet for more than two months about how the high court is going to rule on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. This is information that could move markets, turn economies and greatly affect this fall's national elections, including the presidential contest between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But unlike the Congress and the executive branch, which seem to leak information willy-nilly, the Supreme Court, from the chief justice down to the lowliest clerk, appears to truly value silence when it comes to upcoming court opinions, big and small. No one talks, and that's the way they like it.