The simplest explanation of the Obamacare court case, from Justice Elena Kagan

[babylonsister]

The simplest explanation of the Obamacare court case, from Justice Elena Kagan

Updated by Sarah Kliff on March 4, 2015, 2:30 p.m. ET


The fight over Obamacare's insurance subsidies is complex, with different precedents and competing legal theories at play. But at the Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday, Justice Elena Kagan offered the simplest analogy I've heard for the issue at the core of King v. Burwell.

King v. Burwell is all about whether regulations should treat state-run and federally-run marketplaces the same. This was Kagan's analogy for that dispute, making the argument that of course they play the same role.

So I have three clerks, Mr. Carvin. Their names are Will and Elizabeth and Amanda. Okay? So my first clerk, I say, Will, I'd like you to write me a memo. And I say to Elizabeth, I want you to edit Will's memo once he's done.

And then I say, Amanda, listen if Will is too busy to write the memo, I want you to write such memo. Now, my question is: If Will is too busy to write the memo and Amanda has to write such memo, should Elizabeth edit the memo?

In my chambers, if Elizabeth did not edit the memo, Elizabeth would not be performing her function. In other words, there's a substitute, and I've set up a substitute.

Kagan's point here, which is brilliantly simple, is that any interpretation requires context. And as soon as context comes into play the challenger's case falls apart.

Samuel Alito did have a rebuttal that kept within the confines of Kagan's analogy:

If I had those clerks ... and Amanda wrote the memo, and I received it and I said, this is a great memo, who wrote it? Would the answer be it was written by Will because Amanda stepped into Will's shoes?

Alito's trying to make the challengers' case here: even if Elizabeth edits the memo, there are still things that are different about the document.

more...

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/4/8149447/obamacare-supreme-court-kagan

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. I am getting angrier and angrier thinking about what they are doing and why.

Taking a case they had no business taking.

Creating shit out of thin air to justify taking the case.

Creating shit out of thin air to justify the position taken by the people bringing the case who
DON'T EVEN HAVE STANDING

grrrrrrr

[babylonsister]

2. I totally share your anger.

This is baloney, and they know it. Let's hope the SCOTUS gets it.

There will be a lot more angry people then just us.

[Cha]

3. K&R mahalo babylonsistah~

[babylonsister]

4. Love you! nt

[Cha]

5. ..