I think Roberts is slightly, slightly smarter then the other conservative idiots on the court.
You don’t have to be too smart to realize that there would be a reaction from the part of the electorate that lost their health insurance because of a lack of 3 or 4 or 5 words at the end of a sentence in the ACA text.
All of those who lose their health insurance would have to vote democratic to get it back. Plain and simple.
Most of those are people who are in red states voting Republicon.
The dumbest strategic move they could do now is take health insurance away from people who now have it and are currently voting republicon.
The phrase “please proceed, governor” comes to mind.
In a normal universe dealing with honorable justices, yes, but does anyone really think Scalia et al wouldn’t just ignore their own earlier writings, or at least find a sleazy loophole to squirm through, if it suits their political goals?
That the DC Court of Appeals was wrong and the conservative SCOTUS justices may rule against it is not surprising at all. The consequence of the federal exchanges not being able to provide tax-credit subsidies would be absurd because it would make a law called the Affordable Care Act unaffordable, thereby obviating the whole intent of the law! Is this so hard to understand? No, unless one is blindly partisan.
Reductio ad absurdum:
In order to conclude that Congress had meant
for tax-credit subsidies to be provided ONLY through state exchanges and
not through federal exchanges, while at the same including the
provision that the government shall step in to set up exchanges in those
states that do not set up their own, one would have to believe that
Congress had intentionally created the health law so that it would fail,
which is, of course, preposterous.
The logic is, in fact, mathematical and syllogistic:
Tax-credit subsidies shall be provided through state exchanges.
Some states might refuse or fail to set up their own exchanges.
Therefore, the government shall step in to set up exchanges in such states.
Based on those premises, the conclusion does not even need to be spoken. It just leaps at you!
In other words, any benefits that would have been provided through the
state exchanges that never got set up, would have to be provided through
the federal exchanges because, by law, the federal exchanges would
assume all the functions of states exchanges, making them
indistinguishable. Better yet, if the state and federal exchanges are
not one and the same, then bona fide American citizens in Blue States
and those in Red States would not have EQUAL PROTECTION under the
Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, and that, of course, would be
unconstitutional (see: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US
Constitution).
Gluck is kidding himself if he thinks Scalia will stick to the aforementioned interpretation. Roberts is the deciding vote and he is only interested in his legacy.
That was pretty much my thoughts as well. They couldn’t deal with it then, because it wasn’t the question before them, but Scalia was pointing out that he was more than willing to hear a case on this issue…and letting everyone know it.
Well, just keep in mind that the entire reason behind giving the SCOTUS justices life long appointments was to remove them from political pressures such as you just described. They are supposed to deal with matters of law, specifically, Constitutional law…period.
Now, of course in practice that rarely is the case. But with that POV, I find it difficult to see Roberts wanting to deal with this case. If Scalia or someone else can make the argument that there are deeper constitutional issues they can use to overturn the law, then fine. But to do so on the flimsiest of excuses…that, as Stewart put it so well, can be fixed with a bad scrabble hand (just add the letters OR HHS at the end of the sentence in question), is not how he wants to go.
I still feel its a moot argument however. I see the full DC court reversing the earlier decision,and the SCOTUS refusing to grant any cert, letting the full DC court decision and the VA District Court stand.
It’s how he rolls. You and I could both come up with half a dozen cases where he’s openly invited a later appeal based on arguments that weren’t before the court so he could stick it to the liberals without even trying.
Right. He has reversed himself often and once almost overnight (Hobby Lobby and exemptions). I don’t think there is any guarantee. The only real fix is to oust the GOP from majority positions in the Congress NOW in 2014, not 2106.
You are correct in your analysis…taking away benefits from the electorate is never a successful strategy for winning elections. I would also add to that, that consumers are not the only ones that would be losing something…insurance companies would also suffer.
But, as in most cases, you must always pay attention to the precedents being set for the future. And while Scalia and others belief in stare decisis is questionable, for the vast majority of the lower courts, it is still predominate.
This is a crap decision using a laughable logic. There is no question as to the intent of the lawmakers here. And if their were, there are reams of interviews, speeches, etc that would remove any doubts. Or, as a last result, they could always summon the authors of the bill in and actually ask them, they are all still alive…and issuing their own opinions which make it quite clear their intent.
We do not want every judge in the country trying to use that same logic on every law that has been ever been passed. Given the collective ability of lawmakers in this country to be able to tie their owns shoes is sometimes cause for amazement, we do not want the courts turning into a form of Super Grammar Nazi’s.
“In order to conclude that Congress had meant …” Whatever they intended…
…You could ASK the Congressmembers who voted for the law! It’s not as though they have to pretend that they are channeling the Founding Fathers who are all dead, for heavens sake!
Is this really not absurd? If the argument comes down to intent, ask the people who wrote the law, those who voted for the law; and quit pretending that they have no way of actually getting to what the intention was.
Question: Why was this question put to a DC Court and a Virginia Court? Could every other state get involved with deciding this again and again? And who had standing to bring this suit? In other words, who was harmed?
Statement: If ANYONE thinks that not voting, or voting for a third party will send a message, get this: the message will be Good-Bye ACA, Medicare, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, immigration reform, and all social programs that help middle class and poor people.
I have been reading comments on other sites, and there are plenty of people who truly believe that the ACA is the beginning of the end of red white & blue Amurica. They call it a disaster, and consider it to be socialism, (which they consider a BAD thing). According to Salon, a poll of Republicans found that 72% of them declared that they believe that NO ONE HAS BEEN HELPED BY THE ACA! Now, you know that in that group there are a number of people who need insurance themselves. So don’t fool yourselves, these people are bitter, they are misinformed, they are loud, they vote, and a good number of them are probably packing heat.
Since when has this court relied on the law, consistency or precedent if it would keep them from doing what they GOP wanted? Because Scalia uses florid language, people seem to assume he in an intellect, he’s not. An intellect would have some internal consistency other than partisanship.
I am more concerned about the next President then the Supreme Court. If President Obama can change the ACA to keep it afloat. Can the next President change the ACA to sink it?
Scalia’s already tipped his hand on numerous issues; it’s why he wrote that book on how to influence the court, giving them the arguments he wants them to make that he’d find persuasive.
