More Possible Good News in Addition to Biden Win

This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the question of whether the Supreme Court should determine that the entire Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, should be determined to unconstitutional.

While oral arguments are not a decision, and lots can happen before the decision issues (probably before then end of the term in June, but not necessarily), statements made by two strongly conservative members of the Court give the supporters of the Affordable Care Act hope that the law will survive this latest challenge to its constitutionality.

Both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh voiced the opinion that it is not the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate the entire, 900 page law. I haven't read the article yet, but statements by these two conservatives that the Supreme Court should not assume the role of invalidating the Act lead me to believe that the ultimate opinion will throw this challenge to the law back to Congress. If the law is to be thrown out, these statements imply, it must be Congress that does the throwing.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/supreme-court-obamacare-oral-arguments/index.html

Comments

  • Upon reading the article, one thing appears possible. Rather than throw out the case, and putting it on Congress to destroy it, the Supreme Court could -- and I emphasize could and not will -- sever certain aspects of the law, while allowing the rest of the Act to remain. It appears difficult, however, to see what aspects of the law could be declared unconstitutional without destroying the entire law. The Supreme Court has already determined the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, and Congress has already eliminated the penalty for failing to obtain insurance -- without, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, just repealing the entire law.

    We will not know until the Supreme Court rules, but for now, it appears that important aspects of the law, such as protections for pre-existing conditions, the right of the States to opt in to the Medicaid expansion provisions, and the right of children to remain on their parents insurance to age 26, seem safe.
  • good news

  • which house Sarem?
  • Not sure what you are referring to, errr, when you ask "which house?" But if you are asking which house of Congress would have the right or obligation to throw out or retain the Affordable Care Act, the answer is clearly both houses. (And no, I am not calling for a "pox on both your houses.")

    If the Supreme Court decides that it is up to Congress to retain, throw out, or alter the ACA, it will be referring to both the Senate and the House of Representatives. So if the Supreme Court does throw the Act back to Congress to deal with, then it will remain as it is. The House of Representatives may agree to alter the Act, but the Senate will not. Even if the House of Representatives and the Senate can agree (when pigs fly!) on a modified version of the ACA, if it does not meet president-elect Biden's views on a modified ACA, Biden will not sign it and neither house of Congress will have enough votes to overturn his veto.

    So, as I said above, it looks (if oral argument has any meaning) as if the ACA will survive this latest challenge. Then it will be up to the Biden administration to seek modification of the ACA to include a "public option," which would be Biden's choice instead of a "Medicare-for-All" bill preferred by the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party.

    A lot depends, of course, on how the Democrats do in the Georgia Senate runoff elections. If the Democrats will both seats, the Senate will wind up in a 50-50 tie, and soon to be Vice President Harris will control the Senate on any equally divided vote.

    If you know somebody in Georgia who is eligible to vote, make sure they vote as if their futures depend on it. Because nothing could be more true.
Sign In or Register to comment.