“Congress Might Step In To Fix The Problem”: How Conservative Supreme Court Justices Harmed Their Own Anti-Obamacare Cause
Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments made it evident that at least some conservative justices are worried about the disruption they’ll create if they rule for the challengers in King v. Burwell and void Affordable Care Act subsidies in 34 states.
The justices and lawyers themselves didn’t dwell on humanitarian costs, but those most hostile to the law repeatedly sought to downplay the consequences of an adverse ruling.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Michael Carvin, argued against all logic to incredulous liberal justices that eliminating subsidies wouldn’t leave states saddled with a punishing regulatory regime. Antonin Scalia got laughed out of court (sort of) for claiming Congress might step in to fix the problem. Samuel Alito even intimated that states might step in and establish their own exchanges. The Court could even lend them several months time to do so.
“It’s not too late for a state to establish an exchange if we were to adopt Petitioners’ interpretation of the statute,” Alito said. “So going forward, there would be no harm.”
If his suggestion was designed to appeal to skeptical conservatives, like Chief Justice John Roberts, and Anthony Kennedy, he may have harmed his own cause.
Alito’s comments evoke the image of many or most of the states that opted in to federally facilitated exchanges scrambling to reverse their decisions—to keep subsidies flowing and preserve the viability of their individual insurance markets.
That would stem the disruption. But it would also underscore the anti-federalist concerns Kennedy raised during oral arguments in dramatic fashion. What’s better evidence of coercion than sending a bunch of states into a blind panic to do something they weren’t originally inclined to do?
Supporters of the challenge might argue that the source of coercion in that case would be the disappearance of unauthorized subsidies, rather than the underlying scheme in the law. Essentially that this would all be the Obama administration’s fault. But Kennedy was explicit in his admonitions that the coercion problems with the challengers interpretation of ACA run deeper than money transferred by the federal government.
“The states are being told either create your own exchange, or we’ll send your insurance market into a death spiral,” Kennedy said. “We’ll have people pay mandated taxes which will not get any credit on on the subsidies. The cost of insurance will be sky high.”
To dull the implications of Kennedy’s concerns, conservatives enlisted Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Scott Pruitt, who banged out an op-ed arguing that his own state’s experience contradicts the premise that the ACA-as-written is unconstitutionally intrusive.
“Oklahoma knew the consequences of its decision but was not coerced into cooperating with implementation of the Affordable Care Act,” Pruitt wrote.
The argument lacks credibility coming from someone who adopted his position, on the advice of conservative activists, precisely because “in states that have not established their own exchanges, the structure of the ACA will crumble.” Seeking Pruitt’s guidance on the ACA’s impositions on states is a bit like taking flight lessons from a kamikaze pilot.
But Pruitt’s point also doesn’t allay Kennedy’s substantive concerns. His interpretation of the ACA arose not from its plain text, but, again, from the input of meddling activists trying to destroy Obamacare. It doesn’t follow from the fact that Pruitt is keyed in to conservative movement strategy that the ACA provides states clear notice that its subsidies come with major strings attached. Moreover, Kennedy’s problem isn’t just with states responding to the threat, but with the threat itself. “If petitioners’ argument is correct,” Kennedy said, “this is just not a rational choice for the states to make.” In other words, even if several states continue to resist ACA implementation after an adverse ruling, there’s still a problem here, because the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to confront states with such onerous choices in the first place.
Assuming Kennedy meant what he said about coercion, he has several options, most of which augur well for the ACA. He could allow the challengers’ anti-federalist construction of the law to guide him to a better available interpretation (i.e. the government’s). He could determine that the challengers’ construction should be avoided in favor of one that isn’t unconstitutional. He could essentially rewrite it, as the Court rewrote the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, to sever the offending phrase. Or, less auspiciously, he could find for the challengers, and leave the subsidy condition on the books, anticipating that a constitutional challenge will arise as a result.
But the fact that Alito and Scalia assumed a ruling for the challengers would send political actors scrambling for a fix doesn’t advance their ends with anyone concerned about coercion. It actually just proves the point.
By: Brian Beutler, The New Republic, March 6, 2015
“The GOP Gang Of Supremes Go After Obamacare”: This Lawsuit Was A Fraud From The Get-Go
Look out — the Supreme Court’s black-robed gang of far-right ideologues is rampaging again! The five-man clan is firing potshots at Obamacare — and their political recklessness endangers justice, the Court’s own integrity, and the health of millions of innocent bystanders.
In an attempt to override the law, these so-called “justices” have jumped on a wagonload of legalistic BS named King v. Burwell. But that case is a very rickety legal vehicle. It sprang from a frivolous lawsuit concocted in 2010 by a right-wing front group funded by such self-serving oligarchs as the Koch brothers, Big Oil, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. The chairman of the front group was neither delicate nor discreet in describing the purpose of the lawsuit as a raw political assault on Obamacare: “This bastard has to be killed as a matter of political hygiene,” he howled at the time. “I do not care how this is done, whether it’s dismembered, whether we drive a stake through its heart … I don’t care who does it, whether it’s some court someplace or the United States Congress.”
So much for the intellectual depth of the King case, which was fabricated on a twisted interpretation of only four words in the 906-page health care law. The plaintiffs claim that the law prohibits insurance subsidies to the millions of low- and middle-income Americans living in the 36 states that did not set up a state exchange — thus making health care unaffordable to millions of hard-working Americans and small businesses who are purchasing insurance on the federal exchange—essentially nullifying the heart of Obamacare.
Both the district and appeals courts rejected that perverse ideological tommyrot, and even the nation’s largest health care provider called the claim “absurd.” Nonetheless, the gang of Supremes grabbed the case as a chance to wreak their own brand of ideological havoc on a law they personally dislike.
By taking over this case, these Republican judges have openly become partisans, thrusting the Supreme Court itself into the forefront of the GOP’s war against Obamacare — and against Obama himself.
While we know that an anti-government group funded by plutocratic corporate powers is behind the lawsuit intended to terminate Obamacare — who are the four people who are out front as the actual plaintiffs in the case?
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is the corporate front, but it had no standing to sue, so it had to find some actual people who would claim they’ve been harmed by the health care law. Thus, David King, a 64-year-old Vietnam vet, was recruited to be the lead plaintiff in King v. Burwell, which is now in the Supreme Court’s hands. He and three co-plaintiffs were chosen to put sympathetic human faces on what essentially is a right-wing political ploy.
But who are they? An investigative article in Mother Jones magazine by Stephanie Mencimer reveals that King’s modest income as a self-employed limo driver exempts him from Obamacare’s insurance mandate — so he’s been done no harm by the law and, therefore, has no standing to sue. Moreover, as a veteran, he’s entitled to VA care and, in a few months, to Medicare, making him double-covered by public health programs. Mr. King’s main reason for being on CEI’s lawsuit appears to be that he loathes Obama, referring to him as “a joke” and “the idiot in the White House.”
None of the three other recruits seem to have been harmed by Obamacare, either. “I don’t know how I got on this case,” says Brenda Levy, adding that, “I don’t like the idea of throwing people off their health insurance.” Then there’s Rose Luck, whose low income also exempts her from the law’s mandates. But she, too, fiercely loathes Obama. She posted on her Facebook page that she “wouldn’t admit he was our president,” calling him “The anti-Christ” who only won the Oval Office because “he got his Muslim people to vote for him.”
This lawsuit was a fraud from the get-go — and if five Supremes use it to take away the health coverage of some 10 million Americans, they’ll also be exposed as rank political hatchetmen masquerading as “justices.”
By: Jim Hightower, The National Memo, March 4, 2015
“Be Very Afraid Of ‘King v. Burwell'”: It’s Whether Or Not The United States Has Essentially Become A Banana Republic
There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves.
–Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels, 1726
The real question before the Supreme Court in the ballyhooed case of King v. Burwell isn’t merely the continuance of the mandated health insurance subsidies of “Obamacare.” It’s whether or not the United States has essentially become a banana republic — an oligarchy whose legal institutions exist to provide ceremonial cover for backroom political power plays.
Almost regardless of what you think of the Affordable Care Act, legalistic chicanery of the kind on display shouldn’t be rewarded. That King v. Burwell has reached the high court is bad enough. Should the Roberts Court hand down a 5-4 decision based upon a tendentious misreading of the statute, several things will happen: An estimated 8.2 million Americans will lose health insurance coverage, the U.S. health care system will be thrown into economic chaos, and a few thousand citizens will no doubt die.
To a certain kind of person styling himself “conservative,” this would be perfectly all right. In an op-ed titled “End Obamacare, and People Could Die. That’s Okay,” one Michael R. Strain argues that higher death rates are “an acceptable price to pay for certain goals,” including “less government coercion and more individual liberty.”
Acceptable to Strain and his colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute, that is, a plutocrat-funded Washington think tank whose resident “scholars” are handsomely paid to mimic the values of 19th-century Russian aristocrats.
Along with the human casualties, the U.S. Supreme Court’s prestige as a fair arbiter would also be irrevocably damaged. As New York Times legal correspondent Linda Greenhouse argues, “The Court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the Court itself is in peril as a result.”
And that would damage what’s left of American democracy.
During his 2005 confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts likened himself to an umpire. His job would be to call balls and strikes, not to reinvent the rules of baseball. It was a very shrewd formulation, as most Americans prefer a non-partisan judiciary. “It is a very serious threat to the independence and integrity of the courts to politicize them,” Roberts has said repeatedly.
With the signal exception of Citizens United, a 5-4 decision invalidating campaign finance laws and pushing the nation in the direction of plutocracy, some observers do credit the Chief Justice with making an effort to move the Court away from overt partisanship. Almost two-thirds of recent Supreme Court rulings have been unanimous.
However, Roberts’ deciding vote legitimizing Obamacare’s insurance mandate infuriated many Republicans. They see in King v. Burwell an opportunity for the Chief Justice to redeem himself. All he needs to do is persuade a majority of the Justices, presumably including himself, that because the Affordable Care Act speaks of subsidies being available through a health insurance “exchange established by a state,” it means only, exactly, and literally that.
If your state—say, New York—set up and ran its own marketplace, then you’re eligible for Obamacare.
If not, you’re not.
No more health insurance subsidies for residents of Texas, Oklahoma and 32 other states that let the feds set up exchanges for them.
Never mind that the law specifically requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to “establish and operate such exchange[s] within the states.” Never mind that nobody anywhere understood the Affordable Care Act to have such a restrictive meaning when it was being debated, enacted and put into operation. Such an interpretation certainly never came up during the difficult period when the HealthCare.gov website labored to get up to speed.
Never mind too that time-worn Supreme Court precedents direct judges interpreting laws to consider not isolated snippets of language, but “the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” (The wording is from a 1997 opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.)
For that matter, if anybody in Congress on either side thought the law meant what the plaintiff’s lawyers in King v. Burwell claim, why have we been having the political battle of the century about it? Why vote 56 times to repeal a law that only applies in 16 of the 50 states?
It’s an odd form of legalistic fundamentalism the justices must consider, the constitutional equivalent of a guy trying to beat a ticket for driving 95 mph in a school zone because a typo reads “ozone.”
The wonder is that the Court elected to hear the case at all after a three-judge appeals court in Richmond rejected it unanimously.
And the scary question is why?
By: Gene Lyons, The National Memo, March 4, 2015
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 