The argument may be colorable but it’s pretty much settled law anyway. The point was about this Court’s record of partisan activism, including eagerly jumping in to hear this case for no other apparent reason, being a sounder basis than any legal analysis for predicting this decision.
It’s not settled law. There is no precedent directly on point.
It’s my understanding that while no court ever has ruled (or likely will rule) that “the law is pretty clearly one way but we will rule the other way anyway because we’re afraid of the consequences”, in cases where there is legitimate ambiguity the courts will consider the consequences. (In fact a lot of SDMB posters have argued that the courts should do that in this specific case - possibly in this very thread, although I can’t be bothered to look it up just now.) And even where the courts don’t do this explicitly, it seems pretty well accepted that they tend to shade their rulings with the practical implications as a driving factor, and this is reflected in both legal commentary and punditry as well as by justices themselves during oral arguments.
In light of the above, ISTM that the extent to which the court should consider the legislature’s likelihood of correcting any upheaval resulting from a ruling against the ACA is very much a factor in play.
Certainly, and more specifically, the hopes of some of them that the obvious fact of Congressional inaction will give them the cover to gut a bill that they hate for partisan reasons are a factor, and are most likely their reason to vote to grant cert in the first place. “The consequences” are the consideration.
Chevron. In such cases the courts will butt out.
That’s not the same thing. That’s the consequences of the law, not the consequences of Congress “being in gridlock”.
Also, the court can stay the order for a certain amount of town to allow Congress to act, should it decide against the government. It would be reckless to make a radical change like that and not allow time for a remedy.
The practical consequences of the law are impacted by congress being in gridlock.
We can know what the financial impact of a chancy in the law will be. We can’t know whether Congress will or will not act. It’s silly to expect the SCOTUS to be soothe-sayers.
In the very near future, you shall relax and kick back, cooling your jets and taking it easy. Don’t worry, be hippie.
- Prediction of a soothe-sayer
In this case, we certainly can.
Don’t be so sure. I would not want to be a Congresscritter up for re-election running on a record of having pulled health insurance out from under the feet of millions of Americans, many of whom reside in my district/state.
At any rate, I don’t want to put the burden of predicting the future on the SCOTUS. YMMV.