The court should have killed this monster when the first case came before them. FUJR
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 ...
Well Jim..maybe there is a glimmer..
That’s good to hear, but it’s also sorta like reading tea-leaves to get the future ... :-) ...
I do hope he rules the way it sounds!
Maybe someone can finally wrench that knife out of my back.
I think so - I mean, like 60-40 optimism. I think Robert regrets his big flub. Wish I were more like 90-10 - but I’m not - but I do think King will win this case.
They’ll probably re-write the law, just as they did in 2010, for the Gruberites who did the machinations for the law.
IMHO
I don't know where he got that idea. That's a faulty premise. America hasn't seen any of that in a really long time.
If the Supremes were concerned with the impact of a law then Roe v. Wade would never have been upheld.
The supreme court is going to play hot potato and throw it back in Congress’s lap, with the rational that congress will fix the State subsidy issue, for the “good” of the country of course.
The court should have killed this monster when the first case came before them. FUJR
Apparently the Constitution means whatever Anthony Kennedy believes when he’s brushing his teeth on a given morning.
I take every pre-announcement comment these justices make with a huge chunk of salt. The comments even some of the libs on the SCOTUS made during the Obamacare arguments in 2011 led me to believe they would lean against the mandate. But... lo and behold...
Good. And there it will hang until the Republican congress passes a bill to repeal it and President Cruz signs it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ! ! ! ! ! ! *snort* ! ! ! ! ! *giggle* choke, choke........
After the first SCOTUS hearing about Obamacare I saw Ginzbag on the stage at some college somewhere during a legal conference or seminar, something like that.
A lady (natch) in the audience asked a leading question about the upcoming decision.
The old witch cackled delightedly and said, “If anyone tells you they know what’s coming in the health care case, you can conclude they are lying.”
I concluded that we were sunk, because of the cackle. Everyone remembers how she peed down her bony leg in outrage over the Bush-Gore decision.
She’ll tip her hand this time too, if she goes out in public. ‘Cause she doesn’t give a s-— about the law, the court or the country, and she will let it be known.
Double edged sword of a comment by Kennedy.
Note his “assumption of good faith” part. That points in exactly the opposite direction, in Obamacare’s favor. IOW the assumption that the Congress and the President wouldn’t knowingly and deliberately do something illegal or unconstitutional.
This plays into the Admin’s argument that the wording is an unintentional “glitch”, since there’s a court-validated requirement for Legislation significantly impacting the states (like by witholding subsidies as the stick portion of a carrot and stick) to clearly identify itself as doing so.
And McConnell will play his usual shell game to see that the law gets fixed while mumbling that the democrats are blocking new measures of healthcare legislation.
Of course Boehner will muster his GOP squishes to vote with all the democrats to ‘fix’ the law while spouting in the media that he’s “just as frustrated as anyone” etc.
Actually I find that comment rather cryptic.
The phrase “proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic” could suggest that Kennedy intends to help fix the law by fabricating a ruling such as Roberts did to save the law in the first challenge.
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.