Posted on 11/10/2020 9:56:37 AM PST by be-baw
Washington — The Supreme Court wrestled Tuesday — one week after the presidential election and in the midst of a global pandemic — with the future of the 2010 landmark health care law championed by Democrats and attacked by Republicans, with two justices on the conservative wing of the bench expressing skepticism toward arguments the Affordable Care Act should be struck down in its entirety.
..
But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the three justices on the court appointed by President Trump, both signaled they disagree with arguments from Republican-led states that Obamacare should fall if its individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional.
"It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," Roberts, who voted in 2012 to uphold the mandate, told Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, who argued on behalf of the 18 red states challenging the law.
...
Similarly, Kavanaugh indicated he believed Obamacare should stand, even without the mandate.
"I tend to agree with you, this is a very straight forward case for severability under our precedence, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place," Kavanaugh told Donald Verrilli, who argued on behalf of the Democratic-led House.
Looking at the Supreme Court's past cases, Kavanaugh told Hawkins that "it does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
This is a cbs news report report. we’re there any other parts that were discussed.
Eg what else would be unconstitutional that would be in the province of the SC to eliminate,
Of course, SCOTUS is completely unable to read and enforce USConstitution. After DC has mostly swept that supreme law of USA aside for 70 years.
DC is conquering USA and We-The-People, with help from our enemies.
SCOTUS, esp. Roberts is one of the biggest enemies. Just another arm of district DC.
Yes, Kavanaugh just never seemed that bright in general. Gorsuch seemed light in the loafers from the beginning which was proven this year. Only Amy seems like a rock solid, steel-spined conservative in the mold of Scalia, Thomas and Alito. I knew that even when she was passed over for Kavanaugh.
Kav was hand picked by A Kennedy to be his replacement.
This is why I have serious doubts about the SCOTUS doing the right thing with regard to the theft of this election. It might be willing to grant Trump a partial win on some election-related things, we’ll see, but if push comes to shove and eventually the difference between a Trump win or loss comes down to one case like Bush v. Gore did, do you see Kavanaugh being man enough to resist the pressure of the legal and D.C. communities? I don’t.
PRyno’s fault for not killing the whole thing.
Without the mandate isn’t it just a giant welfare program combined with a bunch of regulations on private industry? If that’s unconstitutional, all of the federal government outside the military is unconstitutional. It probably is, but the Supreme Court isn’t about to come to that conclusion.
The only reason the liberal Justices and Justice Roberts combined said the law was constitutional was that it was a tax. Now that the tax has been reduced to zero, that justification for the law evaporates, and it is no longer a tax, and therefore, unconstitutional. It really wasn’t a tax, and Roberts and the liberals were wrong on that, but accepting their position, the reduction of the mandate penalty to zero destroys their position.
I agree. Congress has sidestepped this issue since the law was written. It’s their job to fix it. The SC can rule that one particular clause in the statute is unconstitutional and that’s what they’re likely to do. Everyone involved in this monstrosity wants it gone but nobody has the courage to remove it.
I’m not sure that they could not have repealed the entire Act because the Dems filibuster would have prevented that. They were able to reduce the mandate penalty to zero because it was done through the budget reconciliation process that avoided the filibuster, if I recall correctly.
Crap like this makes me think Trump should go enjoy the rest of his life. Nothing will change. This country doesn’t really deserve a man like Trump. Why should he have to fight off the media, the dems and rinos for four more years of disrespect, investigations and lies and calling him illegitimate. Maybe it would be better to have biden viewed as illegitimate and sit back and let the rats fight amongst themselves and overreach o the point of pissing off half the rats who voted for him. Trump’s 71 million army isnt going anywhere. We spend the next four years organizing.
My fear is that ACB will turn out to be a Kavanaugh too. People are full of praise for her but she hasn’t been tested.
The Republic may die at the steps of the fake people’s court.
We all thought so prior to this, but now their job is apparently to play legislative surgeon and cut away things that make laws unconstitutional.
“And what is wrong to sever the unconstitutional parts of the law, leave the rest standing, and put the mess back in Congress to fix? It is embarrassing that Republicans have beat this issue to death but have NOT offered a viable replacement. That is one big failure in recent years. I suspect they prefer to have this as a rallying cry rather than as a solved issue.”
Nailed it. Until there is a replacement for Obamacare it will remain law unless SOTUS decides that it is not severable after the elimination of the individual mandate. I don’t think they will. I believe the court will decide by at least a 7-2 vote that the mandate was indeed severable from the rest of the bill and the rest of it will remain in place even though there is no severability language in the law.
I agree. Congress has sidestepped this issue since the law was written. It’s their job to fix it. The SC can rule that one particular clause in the statute is unconstitutional and that’s what they’re likely to do. Everyone involved in this monstrosity wants it gone but nobody has the courage to remove it.
………………
Great point they hot potato Ted this to the states when in fact it is their job to get rid of the whole thing and replace it.
That said elimination of mandate upheld and at best something so glariing.
Unconstitutional to show this was put together haphazardly
It is not the fault of Roberts and Kavanaugh that the law was so poorly written. They have to deal with the intention of the legislature regarding the whole act. Not just with their intention to have a mandate.
Bad laws should be removed or changed by actions of the legislature. Blame Congress for letting the act stand when they had the chance to scuttle it.
I do believe the severability clause was deliberately omitted from the law in question. This means SCOTUS assumes severability unless the opposite is explicitly included - the exact opposite of the understanding at time of the law.
I think I’ll just wait until the actual decision comes down . . .
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.