Posted on 03/02/2020 7:14:04 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a politically explosive case on whether Obamacare is lawful, taking up a bid by 20 Democratic-led states including New York and California to preserve the landmark healthcare law.
The impetus for the Supreme Court case was a 2018 ruling by a federal judge in Texas that Obamacare as currently structured in light of a key Republican-backed change made by Congress violates the U.S. Constitution and is invalid in its entirety. The ruling came in a legal challenge to the law by Texas and 17 other conservative states backed by President Donald Trump’s administration.
The Supreme Court’s decision to intervene means the fate of the law formally called the Affordable Care Act, the signature domestic policy achievement of former Democratic President Barack Obama, will be on the line during the ongoing presidential race.
The court is expected to hear arguments and decide the case in its next term, which starts in October and ends in June, meaning a ruling is not likely before the Nov. 3 election in which Trump is seeking a second term in office.
The justices did not act on a similar appeal brought by the Democratic-led House of Representatives but did agree to take up a separate appeal brought by the conservative states that want the law struck down.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I’m sure John Roberts is salivating at the chance to rule in favor of his favorite democrat boondoggle again. At least we can hope Ginsburg is replaced before the case is heard so his vote won’t matter...
Hopefully Trump by then has his hands on the info used to blackmail Roberts.
John Roberts isn’t done trying to save Obamacare for the Uniparty.
Under its prior decision, it is now unconstitutional.
Obama eugenics, Romney eugenics, Hillary eugenics. If you like your life, you can keep your life...well no...you didn’t build that.
I don’t trust Roberts. He let this crap stand to begin with... I don’t trust him not to invent some new excuse to keep it around
Just in time for an OCTOBER SURPRISE....
Maybe the govt outta put in their paperwork to answer the question that dare not be asked: By WHAT authority??
Course, ‘taxation’ was/is never under question, but to use it for the beginning of any/all is logically absurd (starting @ step 50...). It’s the ‘for WHAT’ that all 3 “co-equal” refuse to acknowledge.
Its a Tax?
Surprise, surprise...the headline is inaccurate. Dems asked the SC to take the case right away rather than have sent back to the lower court and then perhaps back up at them.
They wanted a ruling right away, on an expedited schedule. The SC declined and put it on their next session, which begins in October.
If the statute is allowed to remain as originally written the US will have single payer government health care. That is what the insurance companies want. The only question will be is whether and under what circumstances that private plans may be purchased.
This was the intent of the law to begin with. It was written to be unaffordable and to force a shift to government payer health plans. I am not sure why insurance companies embraced the law unless they thought premiums collected under the mandate would outpace claims paid.
You can also be certain that alternatives to insurance such as health savings plans or stand alone catastrophic coverage will be challenged or scrapped altogether if Democrats take control of the White House and Senate. Another fate should the law be allowed to stand is that religious conscience in matters of providing insurance will no longer be permitted.
Roberts, “Derp, still a tax! Hurrdurr.”
Robert needs to go for sure.
Hero John Roberts getting ready to carry the babies back into the burning building.
Get ready for more John Roberts twisted “logic”.
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.