Supreme Court decision on ACA coming up in June.

I found this discussion of how Justices Roberts and Kennedy might vote somewhat reassuring.

Despite predictions that King v. Burwell, the Obamacare challenge, was a done deal, a reading of the tea leaves in the oral arguments at the Supreme Court suggests the opposite: that Obamacare will survive.


The reason? A canon of constitutional interpretation well known to lawyers, but little known to everyone else.


Let’s go to the (nonexistent) tape.


Based on the oral arguments today there are clearly four votes for the government. All four of the more left-leaning justices—Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan—strongly suggested that the four words at issue in the case, “established by the state,” should be read in the context of the overall law. That is the government’s position. They also heavily criticized Michael Carvin, the lawyer for the challengers (and their patron, the Competitive Enterprise Institute—among other star clients, Carvin previously represented George W. Bush in the Florida election dispute). Justice Ginsburg also asked about whether the petitioners even had standing to sue.


Assuming (and it seems a safe assumption, especially with Justice Scalia’s acerbic comments to the solicitor general) that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will again rule for Anything-But-Obamacare, that leaves Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy.


Justice Kennedy made three distinct points that suggest he is leaning in the direction of the government.


First, he joined the liberal justices in expressing concern that the Affordable Care Act, as a whole, could not survive if the phrase in question were read the way petitioners were suggesting. Given that, how could Congress have possibly intended it? Laws are meant to work, not to self-destruct.


Second, Justice Kennedy expressed concern that the insurance system in states without state-established exchanges could be destroyed in the court ruled for the challengers. This, too, has long been a position of Obamacare’s defenders.


Third, Justice Kennedy also posed a novel (and to many observers, unexpected) constitutional question: If federal tax credits were only available to people living in states that did established their own insurance exchanges, Kennedy said, the federal government would effectively be coercing states to do so, in violation of the Tenth Amendment. In other words, if the challengers are right, the ACA itself could be unconstitutional.


Here’s where things get interesting—and not (yet) picked up by most bloggers covering the oral argument. One of the classical canons of judicial interpretation is called the Canon of Constitutional Avoidance. It holds that if a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems.


So Justice Kennedy saying that the challengers’ interpretation would render the ACA unconstitutional is another way of saying their interpretation is wrong.


“Many legal observers have opined that the challengers’ case is so weak, ruling for them could undermine the court’s legitimacy.”
Those three lines of questioning—but especially the third—suggest that Justice Kennedy would be vote number five in favor of reading the phrase “established by the state” in the context of the overall ACA, thus preserving Obamacare.


Now, insert all the relevant disclaimers here. Often, justices make arguments in oral arguments just to try them out—not because they believe them. Sometimes, they want the lawyers to do the best they can to refute them, precisely because the justice wants to refute them in a subsequent opinion. It is foolhardy to infer what a justice thinks from how he or she behaves at oral argument. Which, arguably, is what I’ve just done here.


We know much less about Chief Justice Roberts’ perspective on the case, and his tea leaves are even less legible. On the one hand, he came under withering fire from conservatives for upholding Obamacare in 2012, and pressure to atone for his sins. On the other hand, many legal observers have opined that the challengers’ case is so weak, ruling for them could undermine the court’s legitimacy.


At oral argument, the Chief was quieter than Justice Kennedy. He barely questioned Michael Carvin (a point for challengers?), and dismissed concerns about standing. Theoretically, he might side with an ostensibly literalist reading of “established by the state,” and to more general conservative views on the size and scope of government.


On the other hand, if Justice Kennedy is vote number five, Chief Justice Roberts could easily be vote number six. He could take advantage of the 6-3 split to again write the opinion of the court himself, as is the prerogative of the chief justice, since his would not be the deciding vote. In many ways, Justice Kennedy voting with the government would be a gift to the Chief Justice.


And let’s remember that this particular legal theory is a weak one, hatched in conservative think-tanks. As Justice Breyer pointed out at oral argument, it would “put an elephant in a mousehole”—deciding the validity of an 828-page bill based on four words in a single provision of it. If Chief Justice Roberts is as concerned with the Court’s legitimacy as he appears to be, hanging a politically explosive action on such a slender reed is not a good way to preserve it.


In sum, based on the Chief Justice’s relative silence at oral argument, predicting his view is still a matter of guesswork. But Justice Kennedy, who before oral argument had been seen as a clear “no” vote, now seems to be more sympathetic to Obamacare—and more antagonistic to its challengers.


Stay tuned.
 

More insight on this subject.http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04...-defeat-silently-surrender-war-obamacare.html


"Bashing Obamacare is still fashionable in GOP political circles, but for a significant number of Republicans, the attacks are now simply empty rhetoric designed to rally the base. Despite the harsh words, many GOP politicians now lack the willpower to actually strip away coverage from over 20 million Americans. When it comes to taking away their constituents’ health care, talk is cheap, but action is politically risky.

As long as Republicans confine their attacks to the abstract concept of Obamacare their words are well-received by conservative voters, but actual repeal of the ACA would have a negative impact on many Republican and Independent voters who, perhaps unwittingly, are some of the law’s primary beneficiaries.

If they lose their insurance, they may finally put two and two together, and direct their retribution at the Republican politicians responsible.

With an impending Supreme Court ruling coming that might reshape the debate on Obamacare, Democrats should not yet declare victory. While an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling could prove double-edged for the GOP, it could also erode the health care progress America has made with the passing of the ACA.

​
However, regardless of how the Court rules in the King v. Burwell case, one thing is clear. For Republicans, repealing Obamacare was a far easier goal to achieve before it started helping 22 million Americans.

Now that the law is working, the Republicans have little choice but to surrender and give up their war on Obamacare. While many party leaders aren’t waving the white flag publicly, the Republican Party is quietly aware that they have lost their war against Obamacare."



 
Best we wait till after the Supreme Court publishes their ruling. Then there will be something substantial to discuss. What I see above is just a lot of wishful thinking, nothing of substance at all.
 
BobF said:
Best we wait till after the Supreme Court publishes their ruling. Then there will be something substantial to discuss. What I see above is just a lot of wishful thinking, nothing of substance at all.
Click to expand...

How many 'wait until' posts are you going to make? Obviously, we WILL wait but where does it say we cannot discuss the potential outcome in advance? You wait and so will we but we will discuss.
 
OK Jim, so will I discuss, but it is a waste of time. First off, the ones against Obama care are not just going to want to change it out, they want to change it into something just as good but a bit better too. One idea is to get it back into the states control rather than the distant and not hearing DC bunch trying to tell the entire country what is best for them. If we can accomplish that we might be able to get rid of at least half of the dead wood in DC. Other things I see coming after Obama is gone is an effort to eliminate this current debt of $18 trillion.

which is a lot more than the $7.5 trillion debt shown for Bush to have when the Democrats took over.
 
Your reply reflects your complete lack of in depth understanding. If republicans want to "make it better" then where were they all this time? They want to destroy it, period. Turn it over to states? What does that do to the small states? Many of the states where the need is greatest are the poorest. We are the UNITED states for just such reason. You keep buying into the fox fiddler but when the melody becomes sour based upon what it does to you personally, don't cry about it just suck it up and write to the Hannity's and Limbaugh's for help!!
 
OK Jim, you berate me for not posting as the others were doing. But now that I posted you are chewing me out for posting the wrong things. That is exactly why I said we should wait till the courts make their decisions and post them with, or without, justifications. At least then we would know for sure what we are talking about.

For you Jim, you make no sense at all. Berating my post and you have no idea at all about how things would work if put together by some real planners rather than a bunch of single minded sorts. Democrats and their far left socialist ideas are not great for all as some think. Republicans with a more liberal and restricted idea of how a government should work, also have some limitations for their ideas. Before the 1970's the US was doing well. Now we are in deep problems no matter which brand of government we seem to have. We are no longer having cooperating efforts any more as we had years back. Too darn much belief that only one political party can control, so not very often do we see cooperation any more. You say where were the Republicans when the Obama care was being developed. They were outside the meetings as the Democrats would not allow the Republicans in to offer other ways and to help get it more fair. That is why they now want to offer changes and hope it gets better. The Republicans are not to destroy the US medical programs but they do want to give a better program. It is you and others that think for someone to offer better ways for the health program are just there to kill Obama care. Giving the states the ability to run their own health care will not destroy health care at all. We already have a couple states that were able to keep their own ways and also be in Obama care. It is you that has no open mind to other ideas. Damn shame as more ideas will make a better deal for all of us.

Wake up to opportunities. Have a good day.
 
The Supreme Court decision is just one more step this nation will have to take in its quest for a sensible SP-UHC System. It is going to be a long and difficult journey as there are so many billions of dollars at stake. Our Profit Driven system is Not going to roll over and give up easily, and any "hint" of Affordability for the majority is just a fantasy. The ACA does little to reduce our burgeoning costs, and just shifts money around so as to keep our Health Care Industry, and their generosity to the politicians flowing smoothly.
 
Don M. said:
The Supreme Court decision is just one more step this nation will have to take in its quest for a sensible SP-UHC System. It is going to be a long and difficult journey as there are so many billions of dollars at stake. Our Profit Driven system is Not going to roll over and give up easily, and any "hint" of Affordability for the majority is just a fantasy. The ACA does little to reduce our burgeoning costs, and just shifts money around so as to keep our Health Care Industry, and their generosity to the politicians flowing smoothly.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that a sensible SP-UHC is where we need to be and the ACA with its full inclusion of the Insurance industry is certainly not a logical way to get there. But the ACA was the only solution available. It's going to be hard to take another step especially when you want to delete some of the big ACA winners. This is what you get in our divided country a crazy patchwork of government support and special interest entities, but I fear it's the best we could do.
 
We've had Medicare for over 30 years. Current conservative government is trying to make changes by introducing co payments and reducing benefits. Most people very unhappy about changes and government is being blocked in Senate (our upper house).
 
I feel fairly confident that Roberts and/or Kennedy will decide against the challengers. But if they don't, what happens in the states like CA that did set up their own marketplace? Nothing? Or have they found some way to inflict misery on us as well?
 
OK Jim, you berate me for not posting as the others were doing. But now that I posted you are chewing me out for posting the wrong things. That is exactly why I said we should wait till the courts make their decisions and post them with, or without, justifications. At least then we would know for sure what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

I did not "berate" you. I did not "chew you out". I put forth some of the questions you should be asking the conservatives. I know exactly what I am talking about.


For you Jim, you make no sense at all. Berating my post and you have no idea at all about how things would work if put together by some real planners rather than a bunch of single minded sorts.
Click to expand...

WTF? Bob the rest of your post is not worthy of thought or reply. It's inaccurate and convoluted. You need to get off the "picking" on you mode.
 
Josiah said:
I agree with you that a sensible SP-UHC is where we need to be and the ACA with its full inclusion of the Insurance industry is certainly not a logical way to get there. But the ACA was the only solution available. It's going to be hard to take another step especially when you want to delete some of the big ACA winners. This is what you get in our divided country a crazy patchwork of government support and special interest entities, but I fear it's the best we could do.
Click to expand...

Eventually, it is all going to boil down to Costs. Wages are not going up, for the majority of people...yet Health Care costs keep rising. There will come a Breaking Point where the people will Demand some Serious reform of our present system...and then, perhaps, we will see a serious move towards a SP system...much like the rest of the civilized world uses. Every statistic out there shows that we pay twice as much as most other nations, and the WHO ranks the US way down the list in terms of quality of care, and results achieved. It shouldn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that our present system isn't serving us very well. Yet, so long as the Drug and Insurance companies, and the AMA, and the Lawyers getting rich off their Class Action Lawsuits, keep flooding our politicians with campaign donations, getting rid of our present Money driven health care system is going to be an uphill battle.
 
Don M. said:
Eventually, it is all going to boil down to Costs. Wages are not going up, for the majority of people...yet Health Care costs keep rising. There will come a Breaking Point where the people will Demand some Serious reform of our present system...and then, perhaps, we will see a serious move towards a SP system...much like the rest of the civilized world uses. Every statistic out there shows that we pay twice as much as most other nations, and the WHO ranks the US way down the list in terms of quality of care, and results achieved. It shouldn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that our present system isn't serving us very well. Yet, so long as the Drug and Insurance companies, and the AMA, and the Lawyers getting rich off their Class Action Lawsuits, keep flooding our politicians with campaign donations, getting rid of our present Money driven health care system is going to be an uphill battle.
Click to expand...

I don't think Hillary, even though she knows more about healthcare than anybody else likely to be President, would be up to tackling single payer even if she serves two terms.
 
It doesn't matter Who our next President will be....Health Care, and its costs, will eventually push most people, and our government, up against a brick wall...no matter who sits in the White House. Health Care already consumes almost 18% of the nations entire GDP...as opposed to less than 10% of other nations. When that number reaches 20%....within the next decade...Something Major is going to Have to happen. Individuals cannot afford these kinds of costs, and the governments...both Federal and State...are increasingly running out of the ability to support increased debt to pay for Medicare/Medicaid. The ACA just imposes another layer of debt to continue to support the fat cats who are getting rich off our present system. Supporters of the ACA mention the "subsidies" which allow many to attain health insurance....but there is little or no mention of how these "subsidies" are being financed....Smoke, Mirrors, and More Debt.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top