It just became harder for Trump to blow up Obamacare

Business Insider ^ | August 2, 2017 | Bob Bryan

[hanamizu]

they are dreaming in another world when they think they can compel the US Congress to do anything.

---

I agree, but their compelling states to appropriate money shows their thinking. The idea that a single Federal judge can overturn votes of the people (and I’m not talking about a vote to return to slavery, but a vote to preserve marriage as it always had been as happened in California) is, to me, outrageous.

It is routine for judges to order elected officials to do or not do certain things and threaten them with contempt of court if they fail to comply—see sheriff Arpaio.

I understand the Founders’ logic in making them lifetime appointments—they wanted the judges to be apolitical—but the Constitution was written before the rise of political parties and the Founders naively thought that all Americans would “be on the same team”. A homosexual Federal judge in California didn’t like the result of voter-led state Constitutional amendment and he simply struck it down. I can’t imagine the Founders wanted to put that kind of power in an unelected man’s hands.

[Mariner]

They expected that judges would be regularly Impeached and Removed.

Blame the US Congress for that failing.

[sarge83]

If I were Trump I would ignore the ruling. If the courts can set tax policy tell me again why we need a legislature?

[usconservative]

You forgot pissed on.

No I didn't, they're not good enough to get pissed on.

[LS]

And can be appealed to USSC, correct?

[Cboldt]

-- And can be appealed to USSC, correct? --

Yes, but there is no right to have that appeal heard.

This is an odd procedural posture. In the case below, the House sued the administration, and won. The Obama administration appealed its loss.

I don't know if the Trump administration can now abandon "its" appeal. The appellate court more or less recast the case as "Administration vs. States," a case that was not argued below.