Posted on 03/04/2015 6:26:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, which will decide whether health insurance subsidies should be available nationwide or only in those 16 states that established exchanges. Several questions have recently emerged over the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ case, including issues of jurisdiction and congressional intent, but there’s an even deeper flaw: The plaintiffs’ interpretation would render the statute unconstitutional.
Several of my colleagues and I made this case in an amicus brief to the Court. If the plaintiffs’ interpretation carries the day, then Obamacare has threatened states that failed to establish exchanges with virtually assured destruction of their individual insurance markets. And the Supreme Court held in the first Obamacare case that the federal government may not make that kind of extreme threat. Congress can't hold a gun to states’ heads in order to force them to implement federal policies.
This constitutional problem matters—maybe more than any other flaw in the plaintiffs’ case—because it puts the conservative justices in a bind. In general, conservative justices try to avoid second-guessing a statute’s text, even if the text leads to seemingly crazy results, and the plaintiffs have a case that the text of the Affordable Care Act compels their victory. But some conservatives on the bench, notably Chief Justice John Roberts, are also dedicated to a different and sometimes-contradictory principle: that they should not assume that Congress wrote an unconstitutional statute.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
So the threat of the withholding of Federal Dollars for Highways if a 70 mile an hour limit was not imposed was not a gun, but a mere suggestion.Does anyone believe this rubbish.
Because the unprincipled, anti-constitutional wimp Roberts is afraid that the court might be seen as “political”, so he’ll bend over backwards to sustain Obamacare, no matter how he has to contort it to do so. He’s already proven that.
Referring to the original decision to allow O’care to stand, Roberts said, and I am paraphrasing, that the law was constitutional. He also said that it was not the job of the court to protect the people from the effect of legally enacted laws. In other words, if the people we elected to speak for us produced stupid legislation then we are just stuck with it until someone else passes another law to counter it. Using this same logic I don’t see any way he can rule against the plaintiffs. Though the law was poorly written and passed in the dark of night by a group of people who never read it, it was passed as written. The clause was clear as to whom the subsidies applied. Anyone who votes in support of the government’s case should be a candidate for impeachment on the grounds of incompetence as well as malfeasance.
Not that anyone up there gives a damn what I think.
I fully expect the US Supreme Court to continue to pass along the marxist/progressive agenda without regard to the Constitution and wishes of the American people and their lawfully elected representatives.
I know I’m in the minority here, but I would bet the farm that this one will come down in favor of the petitioners.
I don't agree with your characterization of Roberts, but since he has already proven that the court is not political he won't need to do it again. (I know I'm also in the minority on this one, but I believe he was right the first time.) This is a much easier case because it will be determined by the clear meaning of the words and people, regardless of political persuasion, can understand that. In addition, Gruber's own words have given the Court cover.
I have no doubt the SCOTUS will uphold Obamacare. If we want to get rid of it the Congress will have to repeal it.
RE: If we want to get rid of it the Congress will have to repeal it.
They’ve already voted to do that over 30 times. Nothing has come out of that because it died in the senate under Harry Reid. This time, even if it were to pass, Obama has his veto pen.
By Congress I am referring to both houses of Congress.
RE: By Congress I am referring to both houses of Congress.
OK, even if it cleared both houses, we still have Obama’s veto pen to contend with.
And I don’t think we have the necessary 2/3 votes to override his veto.
I didn’t say it was possible to do it now I just said that the Supreme Court is not going to overturn Obamacare and if its going to get done the Congress will have to do it.
IMO getting rid of Obamacare cannot happen until there is a GOP President. But after seeing the lack of will on the part of our GOP House and Senate to stop illegal amnesty and the passing of Cromnibus I have zero faith that the GOP even want to repeal Obamacare.
And then what? You think the administration will abide by it?
Yes, they won't have a choice. They will need congressional help to come up with something that actually works. Of course, that doesn't mean the Republican leadership (oxymoron, I know) won't cave as it always does.
This case is not about upholding Obamacare. It's about whether providing subsidies to people who are in states without exchanges is permissible under the statute.
Duh! Its Obamacare. If the subsidies get struck down the program dies. The court is going to uphold this unconstitutional mess just like they did before.
No, they will not rule against it and even if they did the good liberals in Congress known as the Republicans will re institute the subsidies and keep obamacare alive.
The fix is in...
Actually, he proved nothing of the sort. He proved that the Court is susceptible to political and personal pressure.
He was absolutely wrong in the first case. There is no way to spin this law as constitutional. he had to rewrite it to make it “fit”. Simply put — a penalty is NOT a tax.
Furthermore, he has shown his determination to save this bad law at all costs.
Roberts is an unprincipled, anti-constitutional wimp.
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.