Striking down ACA "is not our job"

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

1. wow, I like that!

[Claustrum]

3. But Roberts isn't the 5 SC judges that we worry about. n/t

[Celerity]

10. just on general tenor and tone though, it is good to hear

[Spazito]

12. This is Roberts' court...

Don't underestimate the influence he will have on the other republican justices to have at least one of the 5 others side with him and the left leaning justices.

Roberts is very, very aware of his legacy and the risk to the credibility of the Supreme Court under his 'care'.

[StClone]

39. But Roberts and his Court will do what they did before

Make incremental changes (rulings) which make the law almost dead but there in name. Like the mandate.

[Spazito]

41. Possibly and that is the reason to focus on taking control of the Senate...

so Congress can shore up ACA which reduces the USSC's opportunities to affect it.

[calimary]

46. I think this is compelling.

This is, was, and will live in history as The ROBERTS Court. Like the Rehnquist Court. And the Warren Court. It’s always referred to by whoever is Chief Justice.

So it’s HIS name on this court and I suspect he’s not going to want HIS name associated with screwing millions of Americans out of their health care.

[Spazito]

47. Exactly! n/t

[DEbluedude]

52. Agreed.

Dems should preface every mention of the supremes “ The Roberts Court...” When he knows that his legacy will be tarnished by the specter of extreme partisanship that in the extreme could foment civil war, his thought process may change a bit.

[calimary]

57. Yep. Good point! It all comes down to MESSAGING.

[marble falls]

56. Kavanaugh said basically the same thing yesterday.

[soothsayer]

2. Now we're never gonna see Drumpf's plan

[Wounded Bear]

4. I see what you did there...

[Bradshaw3]

19. Yes we will

In two weeks.

[SilasSouleII]

33. It's almost ready

The best most beautiful plan ever

[Bradshaw3]

40. That binder handed to Stahl was big

Really big. No plan but it was big. And beautiful.

[LaMouffette]

37. His health care plan is to kill everyone off with Covid.

Dead people don't need health care.

[Hoyt]

5. Final decision won't be rendered for awhile, but seems obvious remainder of the ACA will remain.

[BainsBane]

9. a majority has to agree. nt

[Hoyt]

13. They will.

[BainsBane]

14. Kavanaugh and Barrett?

Isn't overturning ACA one of the reasons they are there?

[DLCWIdem]

16. I actually heard Kavanaugh has a quote which may be agreeable to keeping the ACA

We will see. Anyway

[Hoyt]

21. That's what you were told, but Judges tend to be more deliberative.

Here's and article from CNBC today:

"The Affordable Care Act seems likely to withstand its third challenge at the Supreme Court.

"Several of the court’s conservatives expressed an unwillingness to strike down the landmark legislation during oral arguments in a case brought by red states seeking to eliminate the law.

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both suggested that the court may eliminate a challenged provision of the law, known as the individual mandate, while leaving the rest of the law standing."

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/10/supreme-court-appears-willing-to-leave-obamacare-in-place-.html?__source=newsletter%7Cbreakingnews

[BainsBane]

24. the mandate is the law

It's the only way it can be funded.

[Hoyt]

25. The Mandate has been gone and unenforceable for some time. The question is, does the rest of the

ACA remain intact. It will.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. Yes, for a minute I thought I was reading an old thread:)

[Merlot]

6. Then why did they put it on the docket?

[KatyMan]

7. Maybe to put it to rest?

So it'll stop being brought to them?

[Hortensis]

18. This case asks to gut the ACA not strike it down in its entirety.

If it survives this particular legal approach, that doesn't mean it will survive other approaches currently making their way to the high court.

Ultimately, ALL federal social welfare programs will be on the block. That's why the court is being packed with political activists whose ideology is far to the right of most Americans, including Trump's base.

Also on the block is the "right to privacy." Can government make contraception illegal and imprison people for buying, possessing, and/or using it?

Do people have a right to a free and open internet or can governments and providers limit what we can see?

These same justices very correctly say there is no wording in the constitution that protects these rights. Both were "inferred" by liberal courts. Both, and all other hugely important rights resting on this inference, are currently in great danger.

[mountain grammy]

26. Exactly!

This is a radical court.. We must not lose sight of that.

[Hortensis]

35. Absolutely. I believe there is no valid intellectual basis for the so-called

textualist and originalist schools of thoughts. They're dishonest constructions for blocking the liberalization of society, including the liberalization of equality, power and wealth, that is an inevitable part of its evolution.

Those who created the constitution were mostly attorneys creating a new form of government that had never been tried before. After years of deep thought and discussion, THIS is what these attorneys produced:



My pocket copy only used the pages in front of the center staples for the text. The left-over, second half of the pages is filled with a little basic explanation.

Among other things, the Industrial Revolution had already reached America. They couldn't have begun to comprehend the changes it would bring, but this extremely basic set of laws, a basic framework, shows they understood their nation required a "living constitution" that could evolve with the nation over time and adjust to changing circumstances.

[CrispyQ]

38. Totally agree!

My pocket Constitution is packed with tons of fun facts & useful info.

[mountain grammy]

53. Well said, and I completely agree..

I think the Constitution should have at least 50 amendments by now..

I also have my pocket constitution printed by the Heritage Foundation I checked it carefully to make sure they didn’t make changes..

[Backseat Driver]

8. Let the record so validate quickly - you know what to do Chief Justice SCROTUS

[empedocles]

11. Anyone have the Roberts quote?

[Hortensis]

15. Encouraging, but deciding on the constitutionality of the specific issue

brought before them IS their job. It can be confusing to follow, but would result in a crippling gutting, not a "striking down." That would presumably be called for by one of the several other cases making their way to the high court.

Some of the big results listed by Nancy Pelosi are very easy to understand:

Link to tweet

[cbdo2007]

17. This is correct. People have a misconception about how the court works.

The law itself is not unconstitutional, though there may be pieces of it that are questionable. There is no reason for the SC to strike the entire thing down based on one or two things that can specifically be removed or changed.

I think the SC is going to uphold the whole thing.

[treestar]

43. Most laws have a section saying that one part being struck down

Does not affect other parts.

[jmbar2]

20. Listening to the arguments

No one sounds very persuaded by the arguments again the ACA mandate.

Amy Coney Barret's voice has an extremely grating quality.

[world wide wally]

22. I'm sure Amy and Brett will beg to differ with him ....

as instructed to by the stable genius (madman)

[marie999]

27. Brett has said that striking down part of the ACA does not mean striking down the whole thing.

[world wide wally]

30. We will know soon

I hope you're right

[marie999]

31. So do I.

[Eyeball_Kid]

42. Kavanaugh makes more sense

after a few brews.

[yaesu]

23. I hope President Biden can reverse the fascist waivers allowing states to shut down ACA.gov access.

[Roc2020]

28. SC won't want the Dems to have Healthcare

as a shotgun over the heads of the GOP come 2022 midterms. They will try and find a way to keep the law.

[barbtries]

29. i'll wait for the decision

but this is encouraging.

[Ford_Prefect]

32. I suspect that what he means is we can disable it without removing it

Conservatives like him have a way of saying what sounds like one thing when what they intend and will do are the opposite outcome.
Lawyers doubly so.

That both Roberts and Kavanaugh are making public statements now sounds like the setup for a knee-capping of the ACA. It won't be struck down as such, just incapacitated, de-funded and functionally undone. They will leave it tied in legal knots that a divided congress will certainly never repair.

[elleng]

34. Key Justices Signal Support for Affordable Care Act.

At a Supreme Court argument Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh suggested that striking down one provision would not doom the balance of the law.

'The bulk of the Affordable Care Act, the sprawling 2010 health care law that is President Barack Obama’s defining domestic legacy, appeared likely to survive its latest encounter with the Supreme Court in arguments on Tuesday.

It was not clear whether the court would strike down the so-called individual mandate, which was rendered toothless in 2017 after Congress zeroed out the penalty for failing to obtain insurance.

But at least five justices, including two members of the court’s conservative majority, indicated that they were not inclined to strike down the balance of the law. In legal terms, they said the mandate was severable from the rest of the law.

“It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the law in place,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/supreme-court-obamacare-aca.html

[joshcryer]

36. Roberts trying to give a sane decision in order to...

...cover for their future insane abortion decision.

[AlexSFCA]

45. don't underestimate the power of covid on their decision

congress obviously did not strike down the law, so it makes no sense that the court would do it, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Without the mandate, ACA still works just fine and can be further improved upon by Biden by requiring medicaid expansion.

[bdamomma]

48. Ha!!

in your face you filthy repigs.

[Pepsidog]

49. Exactly. Had they wanted to strike it down or amend it they would have. They didn't so case closed.

[Blue Owl]

50. Ya mean, the Handmaid doesn't get to enable tRump?

Aww, what a pity...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

51. And Donny soils his Depends once again

[torius]

54. Maybe some of the judges' relatives

depend on the ACA. Maybe some SCOTUS want their kids to be able to stay on it. Republicans see the value in things that benefit THEM.

[bucolic_frolic]

55. The Roberts Court is frequently asked to referee the partisan divide

and is - sanely - showing less and less interest in deciding contentious issues. Courts know their purpose - law and long term stability of society. I think they will give us a little of this, and a little of that going forward, blending outcomes to give each side something.

[BobTheSubgenius]

58. That is an astute observation.

I don't know how much of the....sanity?...in SCOTUS one can attribute to Roberts, but I must say I've been pleasantly surprised. By the same token, we haven't seen the new Ideologue Version of the court do anything as yet. There's the acid test.