Could Obama Bypass the Supreme Court? (George Wallace Would be Proud)

NY Times ^ | March 17, 2015 | William Baude

[C19fan]

IT is time to talk about President Obama’s contingency plan for health care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the provision of tax credits on federal insurance exchanges. While the legal issues are dry lawyers’ fare — how to interpret several interconnected phrases of the Affordable Care Act — the practical stakes are high. The government estimates that millions of Americans will be left without affordable health insurance if it loses.

While the administration may well prevail, it has expressed remarkable pessimism about its options if it does lose. The secretary of health and human services, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, wrote to Congress last month about the administration’s lack of a contingency plan: “We know of no administrative actions that could, and therefore we have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision.”

[OpusatFR]

That’s a great discussion to throw out there right before a decision.

I’m sure the SCOTUS will be happy to read their role is simply that of an appendage much like a hangnail or appendix, easily done away with.

[Defiant]

Yes, we are all feeling the impact of that ruling now.

[bgill]

Rules are for the little people.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Yeah..................no problem.

[ModelBreaker]

“So this legal genius actually thinks that SCOTUS rulings work this way? “

Actually, under the Constituton, that was the way they were supposed to work. That’s why Marbury v. Madison was not incorrectly decided.

But modern courts have claimed the right to make rulings that affect everyone before them and not before them.

[gogeo]

"Bypass?"

So that's what they call it now!

[X-spurt]

No, to get away from the Commerce Clause is why SCOTUS declared it a tax.