Did Samuel Alito Throw Republicans An Obamacare Lifeline At The Supreme Court?

Forbes ^ | 03/08/2015 | Avik Roy

[SeekAndFind]

As we await a decision in the big Obamacare Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, progressive pundits have continued to predict a health care apocalypse if the Court sides with challengers to the Obama administration. That’s a wild exaggeration. But there will be some disruption, and Republicans in Congress have been debating the best way to mitigate that disruption. That’s where Associate Justice Samuel Alito comes in.

At oral arguments on Wednesday, Alito hinted at another way to overturn illegal subsidies while avoiding near-term problems for the newly insured.

The Northern Pipeline precedent

At the hearing, President Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, argued that if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare’s federal exchange subsidies are illegal, “I don’t think it’s possible to say that there would be no harm. The tax credits will be cut off immediately and you will have very significant, very adverse effects immediately for millions of people in many states in their insurance markets.”

Alito replied: “Would it not be possible if we were to adopt Petitioners’ interpretation of the statute to stay the mandate until the end of this tax year as we have done in other cases where we have adopted an interpretation of the constitutional…or a statute that would have very disruptive consequences such as the Northern Pipeline case?” “Sure,” said Verrilli. “Northern Pipeline is an example of doing that, and it will be up to the court to decide whether it has the authority to do that.”

Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. was a Supreme Court case arising out of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, which fundamentally reshaped American bankruptcy law. The law, among other things, created bankruptcy courts with broad powers.

[john mirse]

Is Obama's lawyer telling the Supreme Court the following: "If not a single one of the 50 states opened up a marketplace, the ObamaCare law states very clearly that anybody in those 50 states could still get a tax subsidy by enrolling in the federal government exchange."

******

This is mirse. Sorry about the double post. My terrible mistake. Sorry.

[trebb]

Pretty sorry when the biggest argument for an unconstitutional act is that, “Fixing it will cause harm”, while ignoring the harm from so many unconstitutional acts.

[Up Yours Marxists]

The people in this country are so screwed by their Marxist overlords.

* First they force people into insurance they don’t want, don’t need, or lost.

* Then they make it look like a “choice” during an open enrollment.

* Then they close the enrollment even though they forced people into the insurance they lost, didn’t want, or didn’t have.

* Then they force people into Medicaid, which harms families by forcing their families to pay back medical care they were forced into to begin with.

* Then they slap a Band-Aid onto the problem by handing out “free money” they’re not authorized to do.

* Then they change the law to help the insurance companies that are screwing the people to screw them some more with rate hikes that are required by unneeded care mandated in that very same law.

* Then the people are forced into a corner where they won’t be able to pay for the insurance they were forced into and couldn’t pay for by an administration who passed the very law that they’re saying is doing exactly that.

It must be good to be part of the commie bastard pig-lipped lawmaker ring.