UPDATED 3X Supreme Court Appears Sharply Split in Case on Health Law
Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: New York Times
The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed bitterly divided during heated arguments over the fate of President Obamas health care law.
As expected, the courts four liberal members voiced strong support for the administrations position. But the administration must almost certainly capture the vote of either Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to prevail.
The chief justice said almost nothing.
Justice Kennedy asked questions suggesting that he was uncomfortable with the administrations reading of the statute. But he added that the challengers reading posed problems, too. Your argument raises a serious constitutional question, he told their lawyer.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/supreme-court-arguments-health-care-law.html?emc=edit_na_20150304
Toobin: Chief Justice Roberts Was Oddly Quiet During Oral Arguments
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted something odd coming out of the first hour and a half of oral arguments at the Supreme Court hearing on King v. Burwell: Chief Justice John Roberts was conspicuously quiet.
"Chief Justice Roberts said almost nothing for an hour and a half," Toobin said on CNN on Wednesday. "I guess he was keeping his powder dry. It was certainly unusual in that regard."
Toobin noted that Roberts' silence is especially unusual given that he's the chief Supreme Court justice.
"The chief justice is among the most active questioners and he said barely a word," Toobin said.
###
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/toobin-chief-justice-roberts-quiet-oral-arguments
---------------------------------------------
Justice Kennedy Unexpectedly Tough On Obamacare Challengers
Deeply Divided Supreme Court Drops Few Clues About Obamacare Ruling
-snip-
Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to sympathize with the challengers' argument that the plain text of the law forbids subsidies on the federal exchange serving some three dozen states that didn't build their own. But he also seemed deeply worried about an intrusion on states' rights if the subsidies were stripped away without a clear warning.
"Even if you prevail on the plain text of the statute," Kennedy told the challengers' lawyer, "there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument."
He added that the federalism question is "in the background of how we view this case" even though "it may well be that youre correct about these words and there is nothing we can do about that."
The four Democratic-appointed justices came out in full force to defend the law, while Republican-appointed Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito came out strongly in favor of the challengers' reading. Justice Clarence Thomas did not speak, as is customary for him, but he's widely expected to rule for the challengers.
more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-oral-argument-king-burwell
----------------------------------------------
Scalia Insists Congress Would Act If SCOTUS Nixes Obamacare Subsidies
WASHINGTON Justice Antonin Scalia expressed confidence on Wednesday morning that Congress would act to mitigate the damage if the Supreme Court ruled to invalidate Obamacare subsidies for millions of Americans.
"You really think Congress is just going to sit there while all the disastrous consequences ensue?" he asked Obama administration lawyer Don Verrilli.
The U.S. solicitor general had a sarcastic retort.
"Well, this Congress, your honor?"
The audience in the packed courtroom laughed.
"Yes," Scalia protested, "I think this Congress would act."
more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-congress-obamacare
Warpy
(111,383 posts)Republican assholes want us to crawl off and die quietly without any care at all, like the good old days, because their health insurance stocks were doing so well.
kairos12
(12,882 posts)for the SCOTUS, and his reputation, if the government loses this case. Probably wishful thinking on my part.
wiggs
(7,819 posts)to helping people)...he's not going to pull the rug out from under billions of dollars worth of business.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)The GOP or the Insurance Industry. What to do, what to do ...
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)A little group called THE CITIZENRY of the country, and what is just and fair and best for them.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)bottom line. Not going to happen, period
rickford66
(5,530 posts)That's the reason for lifetime appointments, isn't it?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)I can see the stock market taking a major plunge whereas, ahem, the Koch's empire, Adelson and the rest of the insane hateful RWer's monies go thin. US stock go down, so does the worlds.
Reter
(2,188 posts)Can we stop bashing him if he votes in our favor again? After he saved the ACA a couple of years ago, I was surprised how much he routinely still got attacked here. He's gonna save it again, mark my words.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)There is absolutely no reason why Alito should be on the Court.
Also, send that scorn toward Scalia and Thomas: they deserve plenty.
But yes, as Republican appointees go, Roberts could be worse.
How's that for a ringing endorsement? I hope you are right in your own assessment of him.
-app
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the 4 liberals aren't supporting the administrations position ... they're supporting the position of 150+ years of legal precedent (including that argued within the last month by scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Roberts.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)The law is clear. Tax credits go to people who enrolled through state created exchanges. It's not ambiguous. It's the politics of the law that are going to make this close. I don't know why people here are so enthusiastic about defending this Heritage Foundation created, Mitt Romney supported, insurance industry written law. Oh yea, because Obama.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)of know courts interpret statutes, huh.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)that you believe prove your point. Thanks.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Okay, start here: United States v. Boisdorés Heirs, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 113, 122 (1850); Brotherhood of Locomotove Engineers v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R.R., 516 U.S. 152, 157 (1996); United Savings Assn v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988); Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1990); McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, 498 U.S. 479, 496 (1991); and, United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 463 n.9 (1988)
You might be particularly interest in the Timbers of Inwood Forest citation, as the opinion was penned by Scalia
Here is a good primer on the topic ...including this paragraph:
whole, with its various parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context
in a manner that furthers statutory purposes.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf
{Note: I did this for a living, so ...}
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)That is what you think gives the IRS the power to do something that the law clearly doesn't give it the power to do? Good luck with that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Those four words don't negate the many other sections that rely onthe subsidies being available to the federally run exchanges.
That's what those cases announce ... you cannot interpret a section of a law in a manner that is inconsistent with the rest of the law ... Nor, can you interpret a section of a law in a manner that is inconsistent with the purpose of the law.
And in the case of ambiguity, the administrating agency(ies) get to write the clarifying regulations/guidance.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the ambiguity lies not in those four ... everyone understands what they mean individual and as the parsed out phrase ... the ambiguity lies in how those 4 words can be applied to the other segments of the law that are subsidy dependent.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)He predicted the last time the Supreme court would throw out the ACA the headline is a little misleading because you can't tell how these guys are going to rule on questioning except that fool Thomas who's a fucking waste on the court
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with his wife serving/having served on an anti-ACA organization, and, both, he and his wife having received(ing) compensation from anti-ACA organizations?
Come on ... Surely Thomas can separate his (and his wife's compensated) personal views from what the law says.
hue
(4,949 posts)if he now changes course,,, it would mean he took a flogging for nothing!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)IMO. That is, if they succeed in effectively repealing Obamacare, they are likely to unleash voter anger leading, more quickly than otherwise, to single payer or at least a healthy federal public option.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)friendly neighborhood teapartier/fox watching conservative, if the nCourt rules against the ACA?
Hello? ... {Insurance-provider}? My premiums are going up to WHAT?!? ... Damn that (President) Obama!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)leftieNanner
(15,179 posts)which would put my husband and me on shaky ground. I'd love Medicare For All! But if the ACA is gutted, we will have ZERO health insurance. We're in our early 60s and my husband had a heart attack. He can't get insurance at any price!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Turbineguy
(37,375 posts)if they denied the GOP a chance to harm 7.5 million people.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Court is being asked to rule NOT that the ACA is constitutional (that has already been decided) but does the LANGUAGE of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) permit tax deductions only for those people who obtained health Insurance through State systems. i.e. if your state did set up a State Exchange, you can get the Federal tax deduction, but if your state did NOT, you still have to have Heath insurance, but the tax deductions permitted under the ACA can NOT be used anyone in such a State.
Congress can change this but rewording the section in the ACA that contains the wording restricting the tax deductions to those people who obtain health insurance through State Exchanges, to include anyone who obtained Health Insurance, even in a Federal Exchange. Each State can avoid this situation for its residents by simply adopting the Federal Exchange as its State Exchange. The problem is either action requires the GOP to say it made a mistake by opposing the ACA.
Here are the Briefs in this case:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/
Brief of Appellants (i.e. the people who want the Tax Deduction struck down)"
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/KING%20v%20BURWELL%20-%20No.%2014-114%20-%20Petitioners%20Opening%20Brief%20of%20the%20Merits%20-%20December%2022%202014.pdf
The Government's brief and its summation that the language of the Act has to be viewed to make Federal Taxes uniform throughout the US and NOT dependent in state law:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/14-114-Respondents-Brief.pdf
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Yes, many people in the States that did NOT have a State exchange were able to get insurance and take the tax deduction fro that insurance. A ruling against the ACA means those people will have to pay taxes, while people in states that HAD set up exchanges will NOT have to. That is what the Plaintiffs are asking for, will a GOP Congress or State permit that to happen? especially when it becomes clear that such taxes are only due to GOP controlled States by the actions of the GOP who control those States?
If the Supreme Court rules that such Exchanges HAD to be set up by the States, then they are a lot of people who will own the Federal Government Taxes but only in GOP CONTROLLED STATES. The Democrats can run on a platform "Vote for us for State Legislature and we reduce your FEDERAL TAXES AND GIVE YOU HEALTH CARE". Some GOP Governors have already figure this out and are demanding a FEDERAL SOLUTION TO THE RESULTING PROBLEMS FOR THEIR STATES. They are Democrats licking their chops at such a ruling.
Given that situation, the Supreme Court would be better off ruling the Plaintiffs have no standing on the grounds that it would have NO AFFECT ON THEIR TAXES. Such a ruling would kill this lawsuit an the GOP will NOT have to face the consequences of this decision.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I see this in a lot of the threads about King v. Burwell. I think some people are confusing the Medicaid expansion issue.
Each state could decide whether to expand Medicaid. Those that didn't -- mostly GOP-controlled or where the GOP had enough power to block the expansion -- are thereby screwing many of their low-income residents (not the very poorest, but those just above the poverty line).
Each state could also decide whether to set up its own exchange or to use the federal exchange. This decision was seen as much less momentous. It was just an administrative thing. When the ACA was enacted, no state was thinking that choosing to rely on the federal exchange would deprive its citizens of the subsidies.
Note that 34 states chose not to set up their own exchanges. Plenty of them are blue states that had no ideological objection. On the other hand, one of the most successful state exchanges is in red-state Kentucky.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Kentucky Senate is Majority GOP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Senate
and the Governor since 2007 has been a DEMOCRAT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Kentucky
Please note since the 1940s only two Governors of Kentucky have been Republicans and both only served one four year term.
While both Senators from Kentucky are Republicans and five of the six members of the Federal House are Republicans, the state is more Democratic at the local level then GOP.
Going back to the 1970s, the elected positions of treasurer, Attorney General and Auditor have all been Democrats. Same for the elected position of Secretary of State except for the period 2004 to 2010 and Lt Governor and Governor from 2004-2008. The only State wide state elected position presently held by the GOP is that of Agriculture Commissioner of Kentucky and the GOP has held that position only since 2004.
While Kentucky went GOP in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 in Presidential elections, it did go for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.
Thus kentucky is NOT as conservative as other places in the South. You can blame the loss of Kentucky by Obama by racial resentment NOT a rejection of his actual program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Kentucky
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You point out that the Kentucky State Senate has a GOP majority. I think a similar situation in Virginia has blocked McAuliffe from implementing Medicaid expansion, but evidently the Kentucky GOP did not block the establishment of the state exchange. I appreciate your filling in the details about Kentucky -- was the establishment of an exchange solely up to the Governor, or could the State Senate have stopped it?
More generally, look at the helpful map provided by n2doc in this post. I don't know exactly which party runs each house of each legislature, and which held the governorship when a state exchange was considered, but you can see that state exchanges don't track the overall political bent. Idaho and Wyoming have state exchanges, while Illinois and Oregon don't.
My point is that, at the time, no one was thinking that this would affect the flow of millions of dollars in federal subsidies (unlike Medicaid expansion, where that effect of opting in was clearly understood). It wasn't so much a matter of ideology as of administrative convenience.
aquart
(69,014 posts)His decisions will kill more Americans than any terrorist or gun-toting toddler.
We need a number of Americans under treatment for life-threatening conditions and estimates of the number who will die waiting for Congress to restore their healthcare if it takes a month, six months, 2 years till the next Congress...
Scalia is evil...pure and simple!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,123 posts)Has there ever been as evil a supreme court justice as tony the scalier? Or as incompetent as his toady clarence?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)
and am hard pressed to find a more results-oriented Court or one more willing to ignore precedent ... even when that precedent is their own.
It's going to be interesting to see scalia get around his own writing, here:
isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme because the
same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or
because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is
compatible with the rest of the law.
United Savings Assn v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988)
In which he cites to the grand-daddy of judicial statutory interpretation:
United States v. Boisdorés Heirs, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 113, 122 (1850)
Jakes Progress
(11,123 posts)arguing the case will cite that.
I have no illusion that scalia will be guided by anything other than his hatred of and disdain for the common man, nor that thomas will be guided by anything other than sucking after scalia.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and every other case that scalia, kennedy, ailto, thomas and Roberts have announced "in the context of the whole" and as "a part of the whole" as the proper legal analysis. And for good measure, the brief will use the polite framing of, "This Court, in the case of ... and citing to more than 150 years and "X"+ decisions, as authority, has announced ..."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)red dog 1
(27,875 posts)I think Kennedy's remark to the challenger's lawyer is the most significant one so far:
"there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument."
I may be wrong; but, this remark alone might well indicate that Kennedy will not be voting with the other right-wingers on this one.
elleng
(131,202 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As much as I dislike Kennedy's legal analysis in too many cases to count ... I can only think of a single instance where he has just flat out ignored precedent ... But it was a big one, Citizens United (and he got beat up on that one in the legal academic circles).
red dog 1
(27,875 posts)Excellent post!
elleng
(131,202 posts)'the Supreme Court might even defer the effective date of its decision.'
With this, and the Chief's silence, I'll suggest they recognize the important negative effects their decision might have, and might want to avoid such.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Has argument closed?
elleng
(131,202 posts)about 1/3 up from the bottom. Yes, argument has closed.
'Justice Antonin Scalia responded that the law means what it says even if that has negative consequences. He and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. added that Congress and the states could promptly address a ruling rejecting the subsidies. Justice Alito said the Supreme Court might even defer the effective date of its decision.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/supreme-court-arguments-health-care-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I'm guessing he, and maybe Roberts, vote with the liberal wing to uphold the subsidies.
Alhena
(3,030 posts)though Kennedy's concurrence will likely be couched in conservative language of respect for states' rights.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)supply. I'm hoping the president and republicans don't rush through a similar corporate giveaway with education money between now and when the president begins his career as a corporate speaker
GusFring
(756 posts)titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)Congress Act? Why would they now? Teh right has never done anything to help people with healthcare accessibility or costs.