Obamacare’s Chances Of Survival Are Looking Better And Better

FIVETHIRTYEIGHT ^ | 03/06/2015 | Oliver Roeder

[SeekAndFind]

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli won Wednesday’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Or at least that’s what the wisdom of the crowd is telling us.

When we previewed the case, the predictors at FantasySCOTUS saw it as a 5-4 reversal, with Chief Justice John Roberts essentially sitting on the fence. (A reversal could result in the loss of billions of dollars in federal subsidies that are helping millions of Americans in more than 30 states purchase health insurance.) Now, they see it as a 6-3 affirm — in support of the government. (Note, though, that Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy are still seen as on or near the fence.)

Here are the shifts in the predictions over the course of the past few days. The plot represents a rolling average of the last 200 predictions entered by FantasySCOTUS players. The proportion of predicted votes to strike a blow to the ACA fell sharply Wednesday.

Jeffrey Toobin gives an overview of the oral argument — and his reading of the tea leaves — in The New Yorker. He suggests that Roberts’s relative silence may have been the most telling of all. The crowd agrees.

Roberts was seen as significantly less likely to vote against maintaining the ACA than he was before oral argument. Kennedy, another swing vote, also came away seeming less likely to vote against the ACA.

JUSTICE	REVERSAL CHANCE BEFORE	AFTER
Scalia	91%	93%
Thomas	90	92
Alito	88	91
Kennedy	66	50
Roberts	53	43
Ginsburg	17	12
Sotomayor	17	12
Breyer	17	11
Kagan	16	10

Oral arguments have thrown us off the scent before, however. In the previous major ACA challenge, Verrilli’s performance before the court was panned. “He was passive,” Toobin told Politico in 2012. “He was stumbling. He was nervous. I was just shocked.” But Verrilli emerged victorious then.

Despite the shifts on King v. Burwell, the outcome is still up in the air. Josh Blackman, FantasySCOTUS’s creator, told me: “Going into arguments, I thought the case was a tossup. Leaving arguments, I still think the case is a tossup. And it looks like the players of FantasySCOTUS agree: It is a tossup.”

[Sans-Culotte]

There's no way this will be overturned by the Souter Roberts court.

[b4its2late]

Since when did it look bleak?

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

I have no idea what the SCOTUS is going to do, so I want bother predicting or invest any emotional energy one way or another.

Two things we know: (1) Elections matter
(2) We cannot depend on the SCOTUS to
overturn bad legislation.

The only sure way to repeal Obamacare is to elect a POTUS and a Congress dedicated to repealing it.

[Old Yeller]

And the country’s chances of survival, don’t look so good.

[cuban leaf]

For me, this case is a sanity check. If the court does not find that the FedGov is not authorized to set up exchanges by Obamacare, our SCOTUS has lost every shred of respect I have left for it.

It will have officially jumped the shark.

[Sgt_Schultze]

There should only be eight voting. Former Solicitor Kagan previously advocated FOR this law on behalf of the current defendant. She should have recused herself.

What we can observe is that leftist jurists NEVER fear their votes display an ideological stance.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: There should only be eight voting.

What happens with that if there’s a TIE?

[stephenjohnbanker]

” For me, this case is a sanity check. If the court does not find that the FedGov is not authorized to set up exchanges by Obamacare, our SCOTUS has lost every shred of respect I have left for it.”

This should have been closed for discussion in the first half hour.It was a no-brainer. We lost.

[Hostage]

> “The only sure way to repeal Obamacare is to elect a POTUS and a Congress dedicated to repealing it.”

No.

The only way to repeal Obamacare and host of other federal social tyranny is through an Article V process via the Convention of States.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3264800/posts?page=24#24

[Sgt_Schultze]

I don’t know. I’d guess the last Appeals Court determination would stand.

[Talisker]

Since when did it look bleak?

It doesn't. FYI, Robert's single question indicated his antagonistic position to the argument that the legal passage under question was ambiguous.

This "report" us just liberals trying to set up justification for acting shocked when they lose, and also trying to normalize Kennedy's ridiculous position that the Court should consider one-sided economic effects over the clear interpretation of the actual law.

Make no mistake -the Court is about to rule on it's own relevancy here. Because if they rule that the actual law can be openly broken by an Agency's claimed interpretative needs, there is literally no need for the Supreme Court anymore.

[Colonel_Flagg]

(1) Elections matter

If they did, we'd still be arguing over Obamnesty. We'd never have had a Cromnibus. Elections do not matter when Republicans win.

[Bob434]

[[Note, though, that Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy are still seen as on or near the fence.)]]

Roberts isn’t ‘on the fence, not even near it’ He’s already indicated that he believes presidents can interpret the law however they see fit, and remember, He is the idiot that falsely claimed the supreme court’s job is ‘not to protect the people from their own choice of president’ (or something along those lines)- (The supreme court’s job IS however to protect us against rogue presidents, rogue state officials etc=- The court is our last legal line of defense against such tyranny!

[Major Matt Mason]

The only sure way to repeal Obamacare is to elect a POTUS and a Congress dedicated to repealing it.

Then you are going to have to start a new party because there is no way that the GOP will do that if the SC rules in favor of the admin (and I think they will). Personally, I think starting a new party is a great idea because it allows advocates of limited government to get a clear and concise message to the public, as opposed to the muddled, non-existent one that now exists with the GOPe.

[Bob434]

[[Two things we know: (1) Elections matter]]

Corrwection- Elections USED to matter- now that the GOP has become GOPE- electing a republican is no different really than electing a democrat- - both the left and the GOPe are power and money hungry creeps who rat’s rearend about protecting our constitutional rights any longer- it’s all about the almighty dollar to them-

[[(2) We cannot depend on the SCOTUS to
overturn bad legislation.]]

Bingo, there is no rule of law any longer- our supreme court has gone from being responsible for protecting and upholding the constitution, to one where they legislate from the bench and invent new law that overrides the constitution- and because they are ‘the supreme court’ everyone believes they have the right to do so and that their word is law

[Amendment10]

The chances of Obamacare’s ultimate survival was actually decided by the Founding States as evidenced by the Constitution’s silence about intrastate healthcare. More specifically, the Founding States hand made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constituton’s silence about issues like healthcare means that they are automatically uniquely state power issues, not the business of federal government's.

The question is how long will Obama’s activist justices be able to ignore that citizens are wising up to the fact that state sovereignty-respecting justices have previously clarified, on several occasions, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constituton, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts from case opinions below, previously mentioned on FR.

Regarding the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the following list, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court had essentially clarified that the feds have no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance regardless if an insurance policy is negotiated across state borders.

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.

• ”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)

• “Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

Also note that regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs and corrupt justices will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

[Bob434]

[[For me, this case is a sanity check. If the court does not find that the FedGov is not authorized to set up exchanges by Obamacare, our SCOTUS has lost every shred of respect I have left for it.]]

They’s already lost and shred of credibility they once had when they allowed the VIOLATION of the constitution to pass I nthe first place

Crudely illustrated- man USED TO BE free to wander this country and live entirely off the land, NEVER being forced to purchase ANYTHING by our government. He had the right to be left alone- he could eat off the land, make his own clothes, and live and die In the wilderness IF he so chose to do so- NEVER being forced to purchase anything- it was his constitutional right to be left alone- He could roam from state to state- and never be obliged to anyone for anything As long as he didn’t break any laws-

Then along comes obummercare, which now forces him to purchase something against his will, and turns him into a criminal if he doesn’t- VIOLATING his right to be left alone!

[Bob434]

[[There should only be eight voting. Former Solicitor Kagan previously advocated FOR this law on behalf of the current defendant. She should have recused herself.]]

If this is true, then why aren’t the republican SC justices demanding she do so? I think you’re right, but I’m puzzled why they are allowing her to be seated in this atgument

[Bob434]

[[No.

The only way to repeal Obamacare and host of other federal social tyranny is through an Article V process via the Convention of States.]]

Noone is going to uphold that article, because they are terrified of the left- plain and simple