I don’t buy the
“Roberts is compromised”
scare
Roberts ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 because
- he didn’t want to intrude on the separation of powers, and
- he wanted restraint on the Commerce clause
If you recall, Roberts struck down the Medicaid provisions in Obamacare. This protects the states against Federal funding threats.
Roberts defended his position by stating (in essence) that “elections have consequences”
The present case is NOT argued on Constitutional grounds. It is being argued that the letter of the law is not being followed.
I strongly believe that Roberts will shoot down the law on the basis that “words have consequences”
Voting against Obamacare would just send the issue back to Congress which should satisfy the courts IMO.
I have a feeling SCROTUS will twist this around to make it “work”. Here’s what they’ll say:
“Article 8 of the Constitution ensures uniform application of tax laws. As such, the Affordable Care Act is in violation, and therefore subsidies must be applied equally amongst all states regardless of participation.”
That means they’ll side with the IRS brownshirts. And even if they go against the law as written, the Marxist moonbat Republicrats will extend the subsidies immediately to “avoid Republic fallout” anyway.
The four liberal justices indicated strong support for the Obama administration’s position, in opposition to the most conservative members of the court. Those four will likely have to win over either Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who didn’t say much, or Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said he’s not comfortable with the administration’s position.
The law states that only people who buy Obamacare “though an Exchange established by the state,” are eligible for subsidies, but the IRS has subsidized plans for millions of people who purchased them through the federal exchange.
PFL
I’m telling you folks, we are just ONE vote away from becoming a third world country.
ONE VOTE!
The libs defense is. “The end justifies the means.” That according to an attorney on Levin. Their usual defense. .
Divided by what? Which moron was most responsible for passing a brain fart of a law.
“If they rule that the federal subsidies the Internal Revenue Service has doled out for Obamacare plans are illegal, millions of people would no longer be able to afford their plans, and the entire law would be crippled.”
None of which should be a consideration, IMHO. Either the law is constitutional, or it is not. It’s not the court’s job to “fix” political problems that come from bad law or striking down a bad law.
Of course, I’m kidding myself if I expect this to be better than a 5-4 vote against. Kennedy or Roberts might vote with Scalia/Alito/Thomas. I don’t think we’ll get both, though I don’t think it impossible both could join with Ginsburg and crew (i.e. 6-3 in favor of upholding the law).
Kennedy’s always been a swing vote, so I can’t gripe too much. Roberts, however, has been a big, big disappointment.
They are bitterly divided over the Constitution, not Obamacare.
Very nice and informative. Thank you!
Things that make you go Hmmmmm.
If you don't pay the premiums...it's not "yours".