We will continue argument this morning in case number 11 393 National Federation of Independent Business versus Sabilias.

Hey everyone, it's Leon Nefak, co-creator of Fiasco and Slow Burn.

On today's episode of 5-4, Peter, Rianne and Michael are talking about the Supreme Court case that upheld Obamacare.

The stakes only grow larger with months before an election. Will the justices be criticized for letting politics creep into the courtroom?

The case is from 2012, with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

As the hosts are about to explain, it was an opinion that people who support affordable healthcare or any other progressive legislation should regard with more than a little suspicion.

You asked really for limiting principles so we don't get into a matter that I think has nothing to do with this case broccoli.

This is 5-4, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

Welcome to 5-4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have slowly poisoned American life like toxic runoff into a mountain stream.

I am Peter, Twitter's the law boy and I'm here with Michael.

Hey everybody.

And from Austin, Texas, Rianne.

Hi, fam.

And today we are doing NFIB, the Sabilius, aka the Obamacare decision.

And this case was touted by many liberals at the time as a win because it technically upheld Obamacare.

At the same time though, a lot of academics sounded the alarm because not only did the court strike down an important part of the law, but it laid the groundwork for jurisprudence that is set to undermine healthcare, civil rights, and environmental rights.

And to be specific, this case was a challenge to two parts of the Obamacare law.

The individual mandate, which required Americans to buy health insurance or otherwise pay a penalty, and the laws expansion of the Medicaid program to cover more of the population.

The argument was for that for various reasons, these parts of the law exceeded Congress's authority under the Constitution.

And the court held that the individual mandate could be upheld under Congress's taxing power, but not its Commerce clause power, and that the expansion of Medicaid as written was a violation of Congress's spending clause power.

This case is a shining example, I think, of the links that conservatives will go to limit federal power when it's politically convenient to them.

And the conservatives here do exactly the sort of shit that they claim liberal justices do, right?

...