The Supreme Court upheld President Obama’s signature healthcare law Thursday in a 5-4 decision that vindicates Obama and helps define Chief Justice John Roberts.

The court said the health law’s individual mandate, which requires most taxpayers to either buy insurance or pay a penalty, is a tax and is constitutional. The court also altered the law’s Medicaid expansion without striking it down entirely.

The ruling is an enormous victory for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who had long insisted the healthcare law is constitutional.

The fact that Roberts — a bona fide conservative appointed by former President George W. Bush — wrote the majority opinion is a blow to Republicans who had claimed the mantle of the Constitution in opposing the individual mandate.

Republicans will press ahead with symbolic votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they will have to make significant gains in November’s election to actually stop Obama’s signature domestic achievement from taking effect.

“Our mission is clear — if we want to get rid of ObamaCare, we're going to have to get rid of President Obama,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday.

The GOP also signaled after the decision that it intends to make the question of taxes a centerpiece in its argument against Obama. Romney said the law would result in a huge tax increase, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) warned the decision could allow the IRS to come after the uninsured.

Roberts tacitly acknowledged the passionate opposition to the healthcare law, but he said policy decisions belong to the elected branches of government, not the court.

“It is not our job to save the people from the consequences of their political decisions,” he said.

The decision allows Roberts — whose legacy will rest in large part on this case — to avoid the severe repercussions that both sides of the case had feared. The court did not strike down the signature domestic achievement of a sitting president, nor did it give its approval to an expansion of Congress's powers.

The ruling will also change the way the political left and right view Roberts, who with his majority opinion became a target for conservatives.

Roberts’ opinion on the mandate was joined by the court’s liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Democrats heralded the ruling even though the court took an unexpected route to uphold the law. The justices upheld the mandate as a use of Congress’ tax powers — not as a regulation of interstate commerce.

Obama argued repeatedly during the legislative debate that the mandate is not a tax, and the law would have been even more difficult to pass if Democrats had described the mandate as a tax.

But the Justice Department has consistently defended the mandate in court as both a use of Congress’ taxing power and a use of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

The five justices in the Supreme Court’s majority are the first judges in the country to side with the Obama administration’s tax argument. It was rejected in every lower court, even those that ultimately upheld the healthcare law.

Roberts’ majority opinion cited estimates that as many as 4 million people will choose to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance.

“That Congress regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws,” Roberts wrote. “It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.”

Politically, Democrats had insisted that the mandate is not a tax. But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wasn’t concerned that the court upheld the mandate on tax grounds.

“Call it what you will, it is a step forward for America's families. And you know what? Take 'yes' for an answer. This is a very good thing for the American people,” she said at a press conference.

Many of the law's supporters thought before oral arguments that Roberts might vote to uphold the mandate, but on different grounds. After the arguments, conventional wisdom held that Roberts would vote to strike the mandate and Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the swing vote in the healthcare case, fulfilling his traditional role on the court.

Kennedy, though, not only sided with the court's conservatives, he read a statement from the bench summarizing the strongly worded dissenting opinion.

“The majority rewrites the statute Congress wrote” by deciding the mandate is a tax, Kennedy said from the bench.

The dissenting justices said the mandate is unconstitutional and the entire law should have been struck down.

“The court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty,” Kennedy said. “It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching.”

The court did chip away at the healthcare law's Medicaid expansion without striking it down entirely. It said the federal government cannot withhold all Medicaid funding from states that choose not to take part in the expansion, but must give states a choice between participating in the expanded program or leaving it as is.

Twenty-six states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) filed the lawsuit as soon as Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law.

NFIB executive director Karen Harned said she was “very disappointed” in the court's ruling.

“There's going to be a public outcry from our members. I can assure you of that,” Harned said, speaking just outside the Supreme Court.

The ruling was met with angry protests from conservatives, who said the court had paved the way for a single-payer healthcare system. One speaker rallied protesters to elect “conservatives — not Republicans, but conservatives” in the fall, to ensure that the law is overturned in Congress.

TheHill.com 

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration hailed the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood's presidential candidate in Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, as a key advance for Middle East democracy and a model for other Arab states attempting political transitions.

But beneath the White House's public pronouncements, fears are mounting inside U.S. national-security agencies about the prospects for Washington's alliance with Cairo, as well as for the regional interests of the U.S. and its allies.

The White House, while praising the election, cautioned Cairo's new leader Sunday to respect the rights of non-Muslims and women as he forms a government. It also suggested that Washington expects Egypt's new Islamist government to maintain and respect the country's peace treaty with Israel, a cornerstone of the American-Egyptian alliance for the past 30 years.

"We look forward to working together with President-elect Morsi and the government he forms, on the basis of mutual respect, to advance the many shared interests between Egypt and the United States," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said. "We believe that it is important for President-elect Morsi to take steps at this historic time to advance national unity by reaching out to all parties and constituencies in consultations about the formation of a new government."

President Barack Obama called Mr. Morsi on Sunday, the White House said, adding that Mr. Morsi told Mr. Obama he "welcomed U.S. support for Egypt's transition."

The White House also said the president called Ahmed Shafiq, who Mr. Morsi defeated, "to commend him on a well-run campaign," adding that he encouraged the general "to continue to play a role in Egyptian politics by supporting the democratic process and working to unify the Egyptian people."

Top diplomats, including the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, have had a number of "friendly contacts" with leading Muslim Brotherhood figures, including the former presidential candidate, Khairat al Shater, and members of the group's economic team, a senior U.S. official said. In these private talks, Muslim Brotherhood representatives have reassured the U.S. by saying "all the right things on the economic side," the official said, but elements of the group's social agenda remain a concern for the administration.

"Sure we'll deal with them. They're freely elected," the official said.

Depending on how much power the military cedes to the new president, Mr. Morsi's election potentially could damp U.S.-Egyptian military ties. The U.S. military maintained close relations with its Egyptian counterpart throughout former President Hosni Mubarak's rule.

In addition to $1.3 billion in annual military aid, U.S. and Egyptian officers held regular exchanges and military exercises to further bind the militaries.

At critical junctures in the transition, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other officials have called counterparts in Cairo, urging them to remain committed to elections. A little over a week ago, in a call to Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, Mr. Panetta pressed the ruling military council to continue with the presidential elections and its democratic transition after a ruling by the country's high court dissolved Parliament.

In many ways, a Morsi victory was the most desirable outcome for Mr. Obama, who waded deeply into last year's Arab Spring and had sided against longtime U.S. ally Mr. Mubarak. Still, Mr. Morsi's win raises numerous challenges to U.S. security interests across the Middle East, said U.S., Arab and Israeli officials

The Muslim Brotherhood's rise in Cairo is seen as a risk to Israel's security and a complication to efforts at promoting Arab-Israeli peace talks. Israeli officials in recent weeks have pointed to growing attacks on the Jewish state from the Egyptian-controlled Sinai as evidence that a weakening military in Cairo is less able to secure Israel's borders and underpin the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement.U.S. and Arab officials also worry the Muslim Brotherhood's rise could accelerate the continuing expansion of Islamist governments across the region in the wake of the political uprisings that started last year. Islamist governments have been formed in Libya and Tunisia.

Washington is particularly concerned about the future of Jordan's King Abdullah, a staunch ally of the U.S. and Israel who has been a key player in combating the role of al Qaeda and Iran in the region. Jordan's own Muslim Brotherhood movement is driving growing political dissent inside the kingdom.

The U.S. and allied governments also are concerned about developments in Syria, worried that the Brotherhood or a more radical form of Sunni power could gain power as President Bashar al-Assad's rule weakens.

"It's scary what the region could look like in a year," said a senior Arab official. "You could have one bloc of the Muslim Brothers and the others close to Iran."
WallStreetJournal 

And no decent person would want to offer anything but comfort to a woman who has suffered such unimaginable loss.

 Still, let's hope that NBC corrects a dangerous misconception contained in a portion of the interview made available in advance of Thursday's broadcast, scheduled to run in the morning on NBC's Today show and in prime time on Rock Center with Brian Williams.

The authorities in Stamford, Conn., have said that the fire was almost certainly started by fireplace embers placed in a paper bag by her boyfriend, Michael Borcina. He then deposited the embers in a plastic container in a mudroom adjoining the house.

According to the transcript of the interview on the MSNBC website, Badger tells Lauer, "I don't believe that the ashes started the fire."

She explains to Lauer: "The wind blew ashes out onto the hearth, and so we were cleaning up. I watched [Borcina] take them with his hand, the shovel, and put 'em into the bag. And then take his—I watched him put his hands in the bag...to make sure that there's nothing on fire in the bag."

"And you watched him do that?" Lauer asks.

"Oh yeah," Badger says.

"Do you blame him?" Lauer asks.

"No, I do not blame him," Badger says. "I don't believe that the ashes started the fire. So I don't blame him.

NBC might also interview Cpt. Joe Duran of the fire department in Chico, Califa. He had this to say to the local press after his department responded to a fire caused by fire embers placed in a plastic container beside a house—just two days before the Badger fire

"The ashes can stay hot for days. They may even feel cool but deep inside the ashes may have an ember."

Duran said Wednesday of the Chico blaze, "It was kind of like, 'How did this fire start?' The guy said, 'Yeah, I put some embers in there, but that was three or four days ago.'"

Fireplace ashes are a hazard for at least a day and can remain so for as long as a fortnight, Duran says.

"It could be two weeks," he says. "Slowly, slowly, it just cooks and doesn't go out. Finally, at some point, it gets enough oxygen to ignite...creates enough heat to go into free burning mode."

He recommends letting the ashes cool for considerably longer than the uninitiated might imagine necessary before placing them in a metal container far from any structure. There is no reason not to take one added precaution.

"Put water in it," Duran says.

In the Chico fire, nobody was hurt. Duran emphasizes that he is not seeking to place blame on Badger or anyone else for the horrific losses incurred in the Connecticut fire. He said he has only compassion for the family and agreed to speak to The Daily Beast with the hope of preventing other tragedies.

"It's just a safety message," Duran says. "We get fires every year like that."

Duran's warnings and advice are echoed by fire safety experts elsewhere, including those at the U.S. Fire Administration, which has a "golden rule" that embers should sit at least 24 hours before being removed from the fireplace.

"These embers really can hold their heat, hold their temperature enough to get things burning for a long time," says USFA spokesman Tom Olshanski.

If just a single ember remains hot at its core, Olshanski notes, the result can be an inferno. "It's all you need," he says, "It's a lot like a book of matches...One match can bring down the largest of structures."

In the June 5 statement accompanying his decision not to file criminal charges in the Badger fire, Connecticut state Attorney David Cohen says the blaze almost certainly started in the mudroom where Bocina placed the ashes.

"A 'V' burn pattern was found at the extreme northwest corner of the house near the rear porch enclosure," Cohen states, summarizing the finding of the Stamford fire marshal. "The only area of the basement showing any sign of fire damage was the ceiling area in the northwest corner, directly below the rear entryway to the house from the so-called mudroom."

He continues: "Additionally, examination of the electrical service in the basement ruled out any electrical malfunction as being the cause of the fire. It would appear, therefore, that the fire originated in the mudroom located at the northwest corner of the first floor. Most likely it was caused by the disposal of fire place ash at that location."

"These embers really can hold their heat, hold their temperature enough to get things burning for a long time."
Cohen allows that "other theories have been proposed such as an electrical fault where the electric lines enter the house or defective electric or gas meters," but are impossible to test because the city of Stamford hastily tore down the house and carted the wreckage away, citing safety concerns.

"Thus, other theories, however unlikely, cannot be definitively rebutted," Cohen says.

Cohen goes on to report that "a fire had been lit in the fireplace at the home sometime in the afternoon of Dec. 24, and maintained throughout the day and early evening until approximately 8 p.m. when it was decided not to add any further wood."

Badger's daughters, 10-year-old Lily and 7-year-old twins, Sarah and Grace, went to bed, as did her parents, Lomer and Pauline Johnson. Badger and her boyfriend went out to the garage to wrap presents. They returned around 3:30 a.m.

"At that time, Mr. Borcina cleaned out the fireplace, shoveling the ash into a paper bag," Cohen says. "He says that he then smoothed out the ashes in the bag with his hand. This was confirmed by Mrs. Badger, who stated that this allayed any concern that she might have had that there were live embers present. The bag was placed in a plastic storage box, which was then placed just inside the exterior door in the mudroom, the point of origin of the fire. Badger and Borcina retired separately at about 4 a.m. The fire was reported at 4:41 a.m."

However likely it may be that the fire was started by the ashes, Cohen does not believe this translates into blame.

"It is my opinion that there is insufficient evidence to establish that either Mrs. Badger or Mr. Borcina were aware of and consciously disregarded a risk that there was a possible live ember in the ash that could result in a catastrophic fire," he says. "It stretches belief to think that they would consciously disregard the danger and go to sleep, much less that they would disregard any danger to the Badger children or Mrs. Badger's parents."

If that is so, then it can be assumed Badger and Borcina would never have put the embers in the bag if they were cognizant of the danger. Cohen was unable to determine whether there were working fire alarms in the house. Badger reportedly says in the Lauer interview that there were. Neighbors and the responding firefighters have said they did not hear any, but Cohen says it seems impossible that Badger and Borcina would have been so foolhardy with kids in the house.

"It would be difficult for a jury to believe that anyone would knowingly disable smoke detectors and then use the fireplace," Cohen suggests.

Meanwhile, Badger has filed notice that she intends to sue the city of Stamford for tearing down her burned house and carting the evidence away before the initial findings of the fire marshal could be independently verified and other possibilities fully explored.

Whether or not the ashes caused the fire, there is no doubt they constituted a hazard. It's a message that both NBC and Badger might try to spread during Thursday's broadcasts.

Daily Beast