Posted on 03/25/2015 12:11:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case whose outcome could prove to be a death blow to Obamacare — the case known as King v. Burwell challenging whether enrollees through the federal signup site, healthcare.gov, are entitled to premium-reducing subsidies — one key justice has casually dropped what could be a huge clue to his thinking.
And this potential clue suggests to some court watchers that Justice Anthony Kennedy — who often casts the high court’s swing vote — may be siding with plaintiffs who want to gut a key part of Obamacare and likely bring the law crashing down.
The Daily Caller reports that Justice Kennedy said something intriguing, and quite possibly revealing, in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee.
~~snip~~
The Daily Caller article notes that the administration “seems to be trying to convince the Court that ruling otherwise would be catastrophic for the health-care law, and therefore for the Court’s image.”
In other words, Obama, his legal team, and his liberal allies want the high court to go beyond considering what the law actually says and to give weight to what impact striking down the controversial provision would have on the millions of people who would be affected.
Responding to a question during Monday’s hearing, Justice Kennedy seemed to say that’s a faulty and largely irrelevant argument, that the Supreme Court should not be concerned with the impact of a decision or with the ability of Congress to “fix” a flawed law.
“We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic,” Kennedy argued...
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
OK, JimR. But. We heard it the first time around, too.
Heck, even if the SCOTUS trashes it, Obama will appeal it to the highest court in the land, his power of executive order.
Roberts wrote the majority decision against Obamacare before he wrote the majority decision in favor of it.
I won’t trust the debates and deliberations until we have a solid ruling, and maybe not even then.
Obamacare.... Too big to fail.
That’s what they are hoping for.
I would not bet the farm on Kennedy.
Most likely, just in case, the emperor's minions are "locating" a treasure trove of child pornography and making sure it is traceable to Kennedy...
fool me once same on you fool me twice shame on me
That is a no good bastard if there ever was one.
You missed the key word, ASSUME.
“We have to ASSUME that we have 3 fully functioning.....”
I’m praying and believing that this is a different court from the one that held sway back when Roe was passed. That was still the FDR Stacked Liberal Court. It has a different overall blend now. Not as good as I’d like, but Blackmun and some of those other libs have gone to meet their Maker since then.
The Daily Caller article notes that the administration “seems to be trying to convince the Court that ruling otherwise would be catastrophic for the health-care law, and therefore for the Court’s image.
What a bunch of maroons. If that’s all they got then goodbye Obamacare!!!
Bkmk
Good sign, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Also depends on what happens afterwards. Commie Care gone? Or “fix” by single payer system.
I was wondering if this “we don’t rule on the wisdom of the law” concept would appear in this case, as it did during the passage of commie care.
Me neither but your rep reporting Scalia grousing that SCOTUS is tired of nailing out congress is another big data point.
I heard that comment, and I read very little into it. My guess was that Kennedy was showing a dry sense of humor, innocently pretending to assume something we all know is false.
I didn’t miss the word.
He says we have to assume that. I don’t assume it. I think it’s ridiculous to consider that statement being a reasonable assumption. It’s categorically unrealistic.
“We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic,” Kennedy argued...”
That assumes facts not in evidence.
L
“We have to assume that ...”.
In my view the key word is HAVE.
If his view is that the court must proceed with that assumption (even though it is ridiculous- unless one assumes that Boehner will gladly fix it for Bozo) then he’s telegraphin that the Court may rule in favor of the plaintiff and throw it in the lap of Congress where it belongs.
The best outcome would be to say that the law as written Unconstitutionally coerces the State’s and therefore no subsidies may be given under the statute. But I doubt it goes that way. We shall see.
I agree. I thought the very idea of assuming such was ludicrous on the face of it.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.