The wiki on the Texas judge at the center of this:
Includes:
…Legal experts who both support and oppose the Affordable Care Act harshly criticized O’Connor’s ruling, with the Washington Post noting that legal scholars considered O’Connor’s ruling “as a tortured effort to rewrite not just the law but congressional history.” Ted Frank, director of litigation at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute said the ruling was "embarrassingly bad."Nicholas Bagley said O’Connor’s ruling was “about as naked a piece of judicial activism as I have ever seen; I don’t even think it’s close.”
Jonathan H. Adler and Abbe R. Gluck, who were on opposing sides of the 2012 and 2015 Supreme Court challenges to the Affordable Care Act, wrote a joint opinion editorial in the New York Times where they described the ruling as “lawless”, “a mockery of the rule of law and basic principles of democracy” and “an exercise of raw judicial power.”…
Rumours of a two-pronged approach :
[ul]
[li]Faith based healthcare leveraging the power of ‘thoughts and prayers’[/li][li]Tax reductions on donations to Healthcare GoFundMe accounts[/li][/ul]
Here is a fascinating take on the effects of an unconstitutional ACA.
A billion dollar Medicare fraud case might have to be abandoned, even though many of the defendants have already pleaded guilty or been convicted. The main defendent, a South Florida healthcare executive is calling for his case to be dropped because the Medicare fraud statutes he is charged with are now unconstitutional because they were amended by the ACA.
Even though he, his co-conspirators and anyone else convicted of Medicare fraud might well have been convicted under the pre-ACA unamended statutes, they may all get off. Double jeopardy would protect them.
This, and many other abuses of power from rich corporations and individuals, always remind me to think less about the useful idiots that complain about “moral hazards” coming from the less well to do, while they constantly ignore that what the worst wealthy offenders are doing.
What is going to happen? My only hope is that this will hurt pubs in 2020 if this ruling does strike down the whole ACA, but they’ll probably manage to make out like dems took away preexisting condition protection and health care for millions.
The case will probably take years to shake out and this administration, such as it is, won’t get the deserved blame. Most Americans probably aren’t even paying attention.
Whacyutalkinbout, Willis? It’s “the party of the healthercare for Individual-1”. He gets taken care of at no cost to him at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (aka Bethesda Naval Hospital).
I guess I still don’t understand why the law that was passed making the tax $0 isn’t the one being looked at as unconstitutional. If the SCOTUS ruled that the ACA was Constitutional, then Congress passed a law making it unconstitutional, shouldn’t it be that law that’s thrown out if Constitutionality is in question?
Like if Congress passed a law requiring anyone who uses the ACA’s insurance subsidies to now attend a Christian church. The question wouldn’t be the Constitutionality of the ACA, but rather the law that altered the ACA.
Obviously I’m not a lawyer, just curious about this.
I don’t understand why there isn’t more recourse for residents of stupid states like Texas that refused the expansion. I know it was a Supreme Court ruling that allowed this and there is no higher court. IANAL obviously. But I wish there was standing for residents like me and some other angle to go at it that the SC hasn’t ruled on. Like I said, not a lawyer but very disappointed that issue and this new potential ruling to strike it all aren’t getting more coverage…or should I say more covfefe?