The Roberts Court and Obamacare

[Draggingtree]

The Roberts Court and Obamacare

Roberts Court and Obamacare

By: davenj1 (Diary) | March 1st, 2015 at 10:06 AM

 

Back when the Supreme Court decided NFIB vs. Sebelius- the celebrated Obamacare case- I distinctly remember watching the news that June morning. Every broadcast was anticipating the decision since it was the last day of the term. Every station was there and they all broke into their regular scheduled programming to bring the news. They all erroneously initially reported that the law had been struck down based on the opening words of Chief Justice John Roberts: the law must fall if it were to be based on the Commerce Clause. This was followed with “but wait…,” then an explanation that the law was, in fact, upheld under Congress’ Taxing authority.

 

On the left, there was virtual dancing in the streets.

[Draggingtree]

Argument preview: Now, the third leg of the health-care stool

By Lyle Denniston on Mar 1, 2015 at 12:04 am

 

At 10 a.m. Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold oral argument on the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the new federal health-care law. The oral arguments in King v. Burwell will feature two high-profile lawyers, Michael A. Carvin of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Jones Day, for the challengers, and U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., defending the subsidy system designed to help millions of consumers afford health insurance. The hearing is scheduled for one hour, but it may be allowed to run longer, especially since no other cases are up for argument that day.

 

Background

 

Five years ago, when Congress finished writing nearly a thousand pages that would become the new national health-care law, it was well aware that the finished product would be subject to strong challenges. The Affordable Care Act was passed in both houses with not one Republican lawmaker voting for it. The day after it passed, Republicans introduced a bill to repeal it. The House has since voted some sixty times for repeal.

 

Still, the law remains on the books, while controversy goes on, and the Supreme Court has now allowed itself back into the middle of the dispute, for the second time in three years.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-now-the-third-leg-of-the-health-care-stool/#more-225531

[Draggingtree]

I hope this Monday morning finds you in robust good health, my groovy babies. You'll need your strength to fend off the waves of zombies, mutants, cannibals, and K Street lobbyists who will be infesting the land during the Burning Times.

 

King v Burwell is at the Supreme Court this week, but I don't pretend to have the faintest clue as to which way Roberts is going to vote. I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV, so I really cannot rely on anything other than common sense to judge if the federal subsidies for states which haven't set up their own exchanges will stand or fall. I think the subsidies should fall, given the plain language of the statute, but then I thought the individual mandate was plainly unconstitutional as well and Chief Justice John Roberts found a way to be okay with it. Roberts had a chance to stop this whole abomination in its tracks some years back and chose to let it live on for what (to my untrained eye) were craven reasons. It's a little late in the day to be fretting about the damage this law will do if enforced as written. (But don't worry, hepcats: the GOP has a plan to save the day if the court rules against ObamaCare. Because Severely Conservative or something.)

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/355269.php

[Draggingtree]

THE RIGHT PRESCRIPTION

KING V. BURWELL IS MUCH BIGGER THAN OBAMACARE

The Supreme Court is about to decide whether we are a nation of laws or men.

 

By David Catron – 3.2.15

 

John Adams, in a 1775 essay referencing the Roman historian Livy and other sources, wrote that a republic was “a nation of laws, not of men.” As recently as fifty years ago, most Americans would have intuitively understood his point and why it was relevant to their lives. Today, it isn’t clear that the President of the United States, the leaders of the Democratic Party, or the members of our “news” media would grasp the meaning of Adams’ words, much less that they still matter today. We will soon discover if the same can be said of the Supreme Court.

 

The Court will hear oral arguments this Wednesday in King v. Burwell. The petitioners in this case want the justices to rule that the Obama administration must abide by the provisions of PPACA that govern insurance subsidies. The text of that law, better known as Obamacare, requires that all subsidies must flow through exchanges established by the states. But due to the refusal of 36 states to set up such “marketplaces,” the Obama administration cobbled together federal exchanges in those states through which it is now issuing illegal subsidies.

 

Obama obviously believes the law is what he says it is, a delusion evidently shared by his party and the press http://spectator.org/articles/61915/king-v-burwell-much-bigger-obamacare