SCOTUS v ACA - Take... I've lost count

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, there was a huge rush to stuff Amy Barrett onto the court. And for good reason, the Republicans needed someone on the court to help ignore proper jurisprudence to overthrow a law that the GOP has failed to repeal in Congress. I know, I know... that kind of sounds like legislating from the bench, but the right-wing has assured me, this is "totally different".

SCOTUS Blog has a few interesting takes on this. One article goes into how this case doesn't even have standing for the plaintiffs, ie if there is no tax penalty there is no injury, no injury, no standing, no standing... why are we even here?!

Another says severability smeverability. I think this argument is interesting as it seems to imply that SCOTUS can't severe the mandate from the legislation, but Congress was the one that did that. They severed it... AND DIDN'T REPEAL IT! So this argument seems to be saying SCOTUS needs to finish the job the GOP in Congress started. Again, that'd be legislating from the bench.

The high court is listening to arguments, this tidbit from SCOTUS Blog:

Maybe it's true that some lawmakers would have wanted the court to strike down the full law, but "that's not our job," Roberts says.

Other comments imply Kavanaugh might be good tossing out the mandate, but using a scalpel to do it. I assume this decision will be provided in Biden's term, so we won't have a President Trump to whine about a 5-4. I really don't want a 5-4 on this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The experts can debunk me, but it sounded like standing could derail this case.

If not standing then 5-4 or 6-3 (Barrett is impossible to gauge) for severability.

I have to think SCOTUS would prefer the prior though because that doesn't require as much effort.

 

[southernhybrid]

Everything I"ve read today said that SOCTUS isn't going to over turn the ACA. Nice try Donnie.

 

[Treedbear]

From the amount that I got to watch the inseverability argument has to be stated explicitly in the legislation. Actually it was Kavanaugh who raised that. And commentary seems to indicate that the SCOTUS bends over backwards not to overturn acts of congress. What I want to know is why a tax that is designed to encourage certain behavior is unconstitutional but I'm effectively taxed because I have no dependents and no mortgage. By giving all those people a tax credit they are effectively taxing me more. If they'd just allowed everyone who has health insurance to claim a $750 or whatever tax credit it would have worked the same way. As it is, apparently, they get to argue that taxes are by definition meant to raise revenue rather than to encourage some behavior.

ETA - One more thought. Wouldn't it be poetic justice if severability became moot because Trump's eliminating the mandate by lowering it to zero proves that the mandate is not actually necessary?

 

[Elixir]

WaPo is reporting that SCOTUS "appears ready to uphold ACA".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

WaPo is reporting that SCOTUS "appears ready to uphold ACA".

Good.