Obamacare Survives SCOTUS

[MontyPython]

It would seem a fitting end to Trump's rein of stupidity that SCOTUS b*tch slaps him and the GOP on the way out the door.

Not only did Chief Justice Roberts lay the smackdown, but also Kavanaugh. Bravo!

OBAMAcare is here to stay, gents. Deal with it.

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Tuesday that it wasn't the Supreme Court's role to invalidate the entire sprawling, 900-page Affordable Care Act, even if one or more provisions are deemed unconstitutional, signaling the key parts of Obamacare will survive the latest court challenge.

As the pandemic rages, President Donald Trump lashes out at election returns and President-elect Joe Biden prepares for a new administration, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to discuss whether to invalidate the linchpin of the nation's health care system.

The Trump administration and several Republican-led states are asking the court to strike down the law, 10 years after it was passed, potentially impacting millions of Americans. Should Roberts and Kavanaugh, at the very least, side with the court's three liberals, the law would remain intact.

Roberts said simply that if Trump and Republicans wanted to kill the law, they could have done it.

"I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," Roberts told the attorney representing Texas, one of the states fighting the law.

 

[volinbham]

It is likely to but they haven't ruled yet.

 

[volinbham]

Assuming it does survive then all the stupid posturing of Dems that ACB's confirmation would mean 20 million people would lose their HC was just that; stupid posturing and baseless fear mongering. Par for the course

 

[MontyPython]

Assuming it does survive then all the stupid posturing of Dems that ACB's confirmation would mean 20 million people would lose their HC was just that; stupid posturing and baseless fear mongering. Par for the course

Perhaps. ACA is one thing... Roe v. Wade is an entirely different animal.

 

[Sea Ray]

Biden has already said that he's going to redo healthcare and call it Bidencare. I'd like for the Supremes to invalidate a mandate to buy insurance just to nip that in the bud but their inclination is always to do very little

 

[jaybird_1981]

It is always funny to me that the "liberal" members of the court always vote as a block and yet the left scream about "conservatives" being on the court when they don't vote on partisan lines nearly as often.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Perhaps. ACA is one thing... Roe v. Wade is an entirely different animal.

LOL

 

[happy-go_vol]

Perhaps. ACA is one thing... Roe v. Wade is an entirely different animal.

Yeah, killing babies is different than denying treatment due to costs

 

[BeecherVol]

Assuming it does survive then all the stupid posturing of Dems that ACB's confirmation would mean 20 million people would lose their HC was just that; stupid posturing and baseless fear mongering. Par for the course

 

[C-south]

If there’s no mandate it’s useless.

 

[Sandman 423]

Perhaps. ACA is one thing... Roe v. Wade is an entirely different animal.

C'mon,man. I thought we were all supposed to unite now.

 

[VolnJC]

It will die on it's own now that the individual mandate is gone...I no longer care anything about...I did care when my government forced everyone to buy health insurance

 

[0nelilreb]

Perhaps. ACA is one thing... Roe v. Wade is an entirely different animal.

Your leftest agenda isn’t going to win out every time , you should be worried for every inconsequential win the left gets , it’s like pulling Jenga logs , one of these times your stack is going to fall . Lol

 

[RockyTop85]

Biden has already said that he's going to redo healthcare and call it Bidencare. I'd like for the Supremes to invalidate a mandate to buy insurance just to nip that in the bud but their inclination is always to do very little

Second time I’ve seen something like this.

Constitutional law doesn’t work that way. The case is not about whether the Obamacare mandate, in all of its possible forms or iterations, is (un)constitutional, forever.

The question presented in this case, as in Sebelius, is whether there is some congressional authority that allows the mandate as written.

In Sebelius, the court ruled that a mandate with a penalty was a constitutional exercise of congressional taxation authority.

In this case, the court considers a mandate without a penalty.

Even though the cases involve the same statutory scheme, the issue presented is different because the mandate is now different.

It’s impossible to say for certain until we see the opinion, but regardless of how this specific question is answered, the most likely result is that, if the penalty were brought back into existence, then the mandate would again be a constitutional exercise of the taxation power. It doesn’t kill the mandate forever.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but this seems like a completely empty victory. The court would strike what is effectively meaningless language from the law.

 

[evillawyer]

Biden has already said that he's going to redo healthcare and call it Bidencare. I'd like for the Supremes to invalidate a mandate to buy insurance just to nip that in the bud but their inclination is always to do very little

There's actually a doctrine called "constitutional avoidance." A court should always decide a matter on a narrow, non-constitutional ground if there is one. So if they can decide this on severability grounds, they shouldn't even reach the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
Constitutional avoidance - Wikipedia.

 

[Sea Ray]

There's actually a doctrine called "constitutional avoidance." A court should always decide a matter on a narrow, non-constitutional ground if there is one. So if they can decide this on severability grounds, they shouldn't even reach the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
Constitutional avoidance - Wikipedia.

Didn't they already decide that it's unconstitutional unless it's a tax?

 

[RockyTop85]

There's actually a doctrine called "constitutional avoidance." A court should always decide a matter on a narrow, non-constitutional ground if there is one. So if they can decide this on severability grounds, they shouldn't even reach the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

Wouldn’t they need to find the mandate unconstitutional in order to need to sever it in the first place?

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

Pardon my ignorance, but was ACB abstained or has she even started in her official capacity yet?

 

[RockyTop85]

Pardon my ignorance, but was ACB abstained or has she even started in her official capacity yet?

She participated in the oral argument.

 

[KB5252]

Perhaps. ACA is one thing... Roe v. Wade is an entirely different animal.

Straws, you're either grasping at them, or building with them.

 

[TheDeeble]

Didn't they already decide that it's unconstitutional unless it's a tax?

I thought that was how it survived years ago when challenged. Said as long as it’s called a tax it could continue.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Perhaps. ACA is one thing... Roe v. Wade is an entirely different animal.

That’s not going anywhere either.....

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

It would seem a fitting end to Trump's rein of stupidity that SCOTUS b*tch slaps him and the GOP on the way out the door.

Not only did Chief Justice Roberts lay the smackdown, but also Kavanaugh. Bravo!

OBAMAcare is here to stay, gents. Deal with it.

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Tuesday that it wasn't the Supreme Court's role to invalidate the entire sprawling, 900-page Affordable Care Act, even if one or more provisions are deemed unconstitutional, signaling the key parts of Obamacare will survive the latest court challenge.

As the pandemic rages, President Donald Trump lashes out at election returns and President-elect Joe Biden prepares for a new administration, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to discuss whether to invalidate the linchpin of the nation's health care system.

The Trump administration and several Republican-led states are asking the court to strike down the law, 10 years after it was passed, potentially impacting millions of Americans. Should Roberts and Kavanaugh, at the very least, side with the court's three liberals, the law would remain intact.

Roberts said simply that if Trump and Republicans wanted to kill the law, they could have done it.

"I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," Roberts told the attorney representing Texas, one of the states fighting the law.

It’s hilarious that you think the ACA is a good idea. You are probably in favor of a nation wide mask mandate, lockdowns and the find for not having insurance. It’s no surprise that you hate freedom. Liberal troll.

 

[NEO]

There's actually a doctrine called "constitutional avoidance." A court should always decide a matter on a narrow, non-constitutional ground if there is one. So if they can decide this on severability grounds, they shouldn't even reach the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
Constitutional avoidance - Wikipedia.

Odd that a self proclaimed lawyer on here would site wikipedia instead of the case law where this was actually established the way a normal lawyer would......

 

[Sea Ray]

I thought that was how it survived years ago when challenged. Said as long as it’s called a tax it could continue.

That's my understanding as well.