[oldplayer]

This is what happens when you pass a law thousands of pages long with no time to read it. You have to pass it to find out it’s flawed?

The Court should rule that the law means what it says “. . . by the States.” And then they 5-4 majority should say that because it is so unfair and treats persons in the States so differently, that the entire Act is unconstitutional and can’t be fixed.

Oldplayer

[Dilbert San Diego]

To me, this case points up problems with passing comprehensive 2000 page laws, which nobody has read. The liberal view is that this federal/state unclear wording in the law was simply a clerical error in the wording. Well, perhaps liberals should be more careful when they shove 2000 page bills down our throats. This is a lesson beyond this case, of why we should not do comprehensive big bills on complex subjects.

[House Atreides]

"...The Court should rule that the law means what it says “. . . by the States.” And then they 5-4 majority should say that because it is so unfair and treats persons in the States so differently, that the entire Act is unconstitutional and can’t be fixed.... ****************************************************************************************************** Well, in one part of his questioning, Kennedy was supposedly exploring that if the "state exchange" language was taken literally then that part of the Act would be unconstitutional since it "punishes" states in order to force them to take certain actions. Since the piece of half-baked crap that is the Affordable Care Act did not have the standard boilerplate severance clause inserted into it, then if any part of it was found unconstitutional then the whole Act would have to be thrown out in its entirety. But then again, this Supreme Court is constantly being inconsistent and does whatever it wants, so who knows how this will go.

[Monorprise]

“The Court should rule that the law means what it says “. . . by the States.” And then they 5-4 majority should say that because it is so unfair and treats persons in the States so differently, that the entire Act is unconstitutional and can’t be fixed.

Oldplayer”

That would be a most logical position to take given the Equal standing requirement of the Federal Constitution. That said Washington’s hand picked employees in black robes rarely pass up a chance to write new law from the bench.

It seems unlikely that they would pass up the chance here to modify the faulty act, than actually uphold the Federal constitutional requirement that acts of congress treat all states uniformly.