Discussion: SCOTUS Case Would Gut Obamacare More Than You Think

Discussion for article #233340

Yes, thanks TPM, we are aware that the GOP wants to do away with O’care. (The 50+ votes to repeal it were something of a giveaway).

But how they can let this suit go forward, when the plaintiffs have no legal standing is beyond me.

3 Likes

Part of me thinks that even republicans realize how catastrophic this would be…a very small part.

1 Like

To be frank, I am not overly optimistic about a purely positive SCOTUS “decision.” However, considering how the court system allowed the Prop 8 lawsuit to proceed all the way to the SCOTUS only to have them wimp out and declare the litigants had no standing gives me a glimmer of hope that this might be a re-play. Even that wouldn’t be a true win because you just know how RWNJs will only continue their search for those very few who might be “harmed” by the law in some way.

1 Like

It doesn’t matter if those four bought off fools have standing or not because you have five Kochsuckers on the Supreme Court.

2 Likes

The smug look on Boehners face makes me wish I had a pie to smash into it.

2 Likes

There were four votes to take the rather extraordinary action of granting cert without waiting to see whether the D.C. Circuit reversed the panel opinion en banc. None of those four votes are going to to be much interested in the standing question. They’ll just say “hey, there’s no sign in the record that there’s a standing problem and news reports don’t count.”

3 Likes

I’m thinking Dylan Scott has cracked the code of King v. Burwell here. The object isn’t to injure Obamacare, it’s to mortally wound it with one well-placed shot. The full implications will become apparent on the eve of a presidential election – Barack Obama’s presidency will be seen as an utter failure, and SCOTUS will have nakedly assumed dictatorial powers. Voter turnout will plunge because what’s the use? the crazies will have government to themselves.

2 Likes

Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt explained to TPM:

all the inherent dangers facing the survival of O Care at the hands of the Supreme Court. And while Mr. Levitt has an impressive background in health care and advised the Clinton administration on health care, I’d like to hear from someone who worked with this administration, at the very least Dr. Emanuel, and may have been present at the creation of O Care to explain how they devised wording which will on close examination stand up to scrutiny.

1 Like

I am seriously hoping that Scalia and Thomas both have hearts attacks before they can give their decisions (which, of course they have already decided without hearing one word of testimony). If that sounds harsh, so does taking insurance away from millions of people who want nothing more than affordable health care.

OT: does Scalia dip? Because his teeth look appallingly grungy. Can’t he afford some whitening with all his Koch benefits?

3 Likes

Make it a cow pie.

1 Like

It’s hard to say one of them, Luck, does not have standing. The other three may or may not have standing. Levy probably does not. But Hurst and King, although they have VA at their disposal, are not required to get it. They and Luck have standing ( granted it was cheery picked for them by the CEI ) and the case will go. It’s best to drop that standing dream and get on with it. If standing causes a delay that time will be used by the plaintiffs to strengthen their case.

The GOP’ers have to do this or their base will revolt. SCOTUS does not have to comply and I doubt they will.

1 Like

I think everyone knows the goal is to kill ACA, by a thousand cuts or a head shot. That’s always been understood as the goal.

3 Likes

I’d love to see SCOTUS and Congress lose all their healthcare insurance if they kill it for the rest of us. Especially gratifying would be to see Tea Party Republicans experience the freedom of being bankrupted by medical bills. Some of them have pre-existing conditions that would prevent them from getting any health insurance in the sacrosanct Free Market® if the system reverts to the old ways.

2 Likes

Oh, theirs will be preserved, don’t you worry. And the teafucks will just blame Obama reflexively.

I’d settle for a sledgehammer.

Me too. Every day I wake up with the fleeting hope that Thomas or Scalia have ceased cellular functions. I truly, deeply hate these men.

1 Like

I may be going to hell for this, but I almost want to see the law invalidated, just to watch Republicans flounder around having to fix things. And fix it they would have to, because for all their bloviating and for all the surveys showing a significant portion of people don’t like the law almost all the provisions of the law (except the one actually paying for it) are amazingly popular even across party lines. People would lose their shit, and the Republicans have no actual solution to the problem, for all that they’ve supposedly tried to repeal the law.

If it weren’t for all the very real suffering I know would ensue I’d totally be rooting to see the chaos.

1 Like

I agree. I’m to the point where I just want to watch shit burn, so the stupid fucking America People™ who have enabled this fucking bullshit finally have to pay for it. Of course most of the goddamn stupid fucks will Blame Obama™, so maybe we’ll just have to enjoy the fire for fire’s sake.

Fuck this shitbag has-been country.

Until someone with standing can be identified to bring this case, I’m not concerned.