My recollection is that, back when this case was decided by the 3 Judge DC Circuit and then appealed en banc to the new Progressive majority created by stacking the court in the wake of the nuclear option, a LOT of folks said SCOTUS wouldn’t touch this at all.
So the fact that they are gives me hope. It takes four Justices to agree to hear a case. I can’t see all four of the anti-Obamacare Justices agreeing to hear this unless they felt Roberts was at least open minded if not on board.
Particularly Kennedy - he’s not the type to want to visit a case under those circumstances. The four Liberals certainly wouldn’t.
Being a SC justice apparently means being able to cloak partisan preferences in high power legalese.
Certainly not holding my breath.
“The Supreme Court Really Might Destroy Obamacare This Time”
Sure - and the sun MIGHT come up in the west tomorrow.
Years ago he smuggled in his kids from Ireland,Cork county, to Central America where he claimed they were of Central American descent.
The regime found out and zerocare became a tax. That ain't gonna change.
Wasn’t part of Roberts’s rational for voting FOR Obamacare that it’s not the SC’s job to overturn elections? That the people had spoken in ‘08, voting in a D POTUS and D Senate and D House, so who were the Justices to overturn what those in power had put into law?
SO now, 2 elections later where the voting public said NO! Stop it! will they decide the public has spoken against the law, and that the SC should let the clear language of the law the D’s voted in prevail?
Really really? Is this like a double really really dare?
But make no mistake: that would be a complete undermining of the nature of Congress, and would invalidate the give-and-take of debate, negotiation, and compromise that is the foundation of a representative government.
The current liberal lie is that the lack of subsidies in federal exchanges was a "typo." The truth is that it was a deliberate negotiation and compromise to remove subsidies from federal exchanges as a result of the election of Scott Brown to the Senate in order to get the bill passed.
The law was written, debated, and amended, with the legislative purpose of explicitly preventing states on the federal exchange from getting subsidies. Subsidies were supposed to be an incentive for states to create their own exchanges. At the time, it was a political strategy by red states to reject state exchanges and leave Obamacare to the federal government.
Now that Brown is no longer in the Senate, Democrats no longer feel beholden to the compromise commitments, regardless of what the law of the land says. They are looking to the courts to restore what they originally wanted, but were "forced" to concede at the time due to "politics." Never mind that the law itself might not have even passed if these compromises weren't made in the first place.
If Roberts finds a way to still allow subsidies for federal exchanges, he would be saying that liberals never have to worry about negotiation and compromise again, because they will get what they wanted anyway when the courts rule in their favor later on. If the Democrat expectation really is that it doesn't matter what compromises they make situationally because the court will restore what the Democrats wanted eventually anyway, then we are dealing with bad-faith negotiators within Congress; Democrats who don't care what they agree to, and Republicans who go along with the charade.
Liberals will have the luxury of negotiating with their fingers crossed behind their backs from now on.
-PJ
They expected every state to bite on the monies allotted to start up their exchange.