General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsInteresting SC mid-arguments, especially from Kennedy
"First update: Liberals lead line in questioning of Petitioner in King, but Kennedy asks important question about disrupting federal state balance.
Counsel for the petitioners who are seeking to invalidate subsidies in states with federal exchanges faced tough questioning from the more liberal Justices in the first 20 minutes of todays argument. In particular, a perceptive hypothetical from Justice Kagan forced the petitioners to concede that context, rather than just the literal text of the statute, is important to understanding it. Once the argument turned to context, however, Justice Kennedy expressed deep concern with a system where the statute would potentially destroy the insurance system in states that chose not to establish their own exchanges likening this to an unconstitutional form of federal coercion. That made him seem skeptical of the petitioners reading of the statute, a hopeful point for defenders of the existing subsidies in all states.
While Justice Kennedy also suggested that perhaps this reading could not be avoided, his skepticism suggests that both sides will be trying hard to get his critical vote."
"Third update: Kennedy raises a critical question for the petitioners.
In the midst of a discussion of context and the consequences of petitioners reading, Justice Kennedy raised a question that will surely receive a lot of scrutiny in the coming discussion of the case. He pointed out that, under petitioners reading, the federal government would be all but forcing states to create their own exchanges. Thats true not just for the headline reason covered by this case that their citizens would be denied benefits but for a very perceptive reason that Justice Kennedy added: namely, state insurance systems will fail if the subsidy/mandate system created by the statute does not operate in that particular state. For Kennedy, that seemed to make this case an echo of the last healthcare decision, where the Court concluded that it was unconstitutional coercion for the federal government to condition all Medicaid benefits in the state on expanding Medicaid therein. Simply put, Kennedy expressed deep concern with the federalism consequences of a reading that would coerce the states into setting up their own exchanges to avoid destroying a workable system of insurance in the state. Justice Scalia attempted to respond on petitioners behalf that such concerns do not enter if the statute is unambiguous, but Justice Kennedy reiterated his concern with adopting a reading that would create such a serious unconstitutional problem.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/first-mid-argument-update-king-v-burwell/
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Shut up, you clown.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)What's the probability the SC invalidates that part of the ACA?
If they do wouldn't it be disastrous for those who are receiving the subsidies?
still_one
(92,372 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)The ramifications are unfathomable.
What's the likelihood of the SC invalidating that that part of the Act?
still_one
(92,372 posts)Roberts who will determine the ultimate outcome
Pretty scary stuff