No. The SC didn’t have any use to him. He was trying to make it useless to his opponents, rather than useful to him.
Making it useless to his opponents is by definition making it useful to him. It also subverted the course of justice. As a matter of principle, it is against the principle of an independent judiciary when the executive can strongarm them. And I mean by any president at any time.
People love to whine about a politicized court when its ruling against their interests…be it this court or the Warren Court. Maybe we need to define what the proper role of the judiciary is. Is it right for the courts to be making policy rather than applying law?
Yes and no. It is impossible (or impractical) to apply some laws without making policy judgments.
Your opinion is (obviously) that it would be political.
I don’t agree. (Unless by ‘political’ you meant to include judicial philosophies? I agree that a judge whose view of the proper role of the judiciary is to help shape good social policy will likely vote to save the ACA, just as I believe a judge who believes his role is to apply the law as written should rule against the ACA on this point).
I also don’t agree that Roberts’ vote is ‘for sale’ in the manner you describe.
Like I said, I don’t think this case has an iota of merit to begin with. I don’t see how a 5-4 ruling against the administration - which will invariably have to respond to a blistering dissent - can be construed as anything other than a political choice.
Either decision will probably be seen as a political choice by those on the opposite side of the decision.
That premise leads to the opposite conclusion, if “the law as written” includes the *entire *law. :rolleyes:
I think it will be 6-3 or 5-4 in the government’s favor, with a likelihood of 59.26274%. I think there is a 5.543453% chance of a decision in the plaintiff’s favor with more than five votes, and therefore a 35.193807% chance of a 5-4 decision in the plaintiff’s favor. Give or take.
Denying subsidies to federal exchanges is a elephantine consequence buried in a mouse-hole using language that is, at best, awkward and inconsistent with other parts of the statute (to say nothing of the actual intent). I think Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan will decide, correctly, that the statute is at worst ambiguous and defer to the IRS.
But more controversially, I think Kennedy and Roberts are going to have a hard time voting against the IRS interpretation. The statutory interpretation and Chevron merits are at least debatable even from their jurisprudential perspectives. And, though not legally relevant to them, it will still be hard for them to ignore the fact that the overwhelming evidence suggests that this was not Congress’s intent, whether they agree with that intent or not.
Though not included in my numbers above, I think there is a non-zero chance that Roberts or Kennedy will invent a new doctrine in the guise of old precedent that will allow them to split the baby. The likeliest candidate would have something to do with federalism and the state’s understanding of the consequences of their decision under federal law.
Roberts signaled in the DOMA and ACA rulings that he doesn’t want his place in history to be as the CJ who let the Court be used as a tool of partisan spite. I suspect he’s aware that a ruling for the plaintiffs would be widely seen as just that, and he’ll find some narrow, inoffensive grounds to rule for the government.
LOL
That really bothered Earl Warren and John Marshall, didnt it?
Tsk. Don’t just throw out vague generalizations. Make a prediction, man!
I predict the subsidies will stand. 5-4.
I want to amend for the following: If the court rules against the subsidies, they will stay the ruling for “X” months to allow Congress to fix things.
Im not sure that the SC stays rulings but Congress will certainly be free to amend the law should they rule against it.
The Supreme Court can and does stay its decisions, and has done so in the past to allow Congress to rewrite a statute before the decision went into effect.
I stand corrected.
I predict the Supreme Court will rule against King and the subsidies will stay. I’m not a big fan of the ACA but I still find it remarkable to imagine that 9 unelected people have the power to remove subsidies in this manner.
Personally, the case I’m really watching is Horne vs. Department of Agriculture.
I’m going to go out on a limb and predict a 7-2 vote in favor of the subsidies. The liberal four side with the government. Roberts and Kennedy concur but would uphold the subsidies because a literal interpretation would violate the 10th amendment by being unduly coercive on the states (SD v. Dole) and give some bastardized standard of reconstructing the statute. Scalia concurs with a separate opinion reluctantly agreeing with Roberts and Kennedy in two paragraphs but writes 17 pages which reads like a dissent.
Alito sides with the Plaintiffs in full joined by Thomas. Thomas write separately to reiterate his view that the entire ACA violates the interstate commerce clause and cannot be fairly considered a tax.
Care to explain the partisan spite aspects there?
:eek::eek::eek:
What you explained as partisan has been business as usual for other SC’s. As was explained, it has little to do with partisanship and more to do with judicial philosophy. The Marshal Court invented the concept of judicial review. John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and Judicial Review | NEH-Edsitement The Warren Court used its oversight to override the legislastive will of the time in several key cases. Opponents of the Warren Court were as pissed off as opponents of todays court.