Transcript of the proceedings (subject to revision) is up on the SCOTUS website. pdf link
I noted one possible glitch (page 5, line 12)where Ginsburg is quoted as saying Medicaid where Medicare would make more sense. She was making the point that one plaintiff would soon turn 65 and become eligible for coverage that could make her complaint moot.
Turning 65 makes one eligible for Medicare, but not Medicaid AFAIK.
Maybe that will be corrected in the revision.
What’s interesting is that Justice Kennedy seems ready to support the administration, but on the basis that if Congress did make subsidies conditional that it would be unconstitutional.
Even if the court goes along with the administration, that’s still a useful precedent to establish and builds on the one established in the Medicaid expansion part of the last case. Restricting the federal government’s ability to use financial inducements to control the states is a good thing.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs recently described Obamacare asa statute written by white women and minorities.
Think the guy’s got issues or anything?
I don’t quite understand this point. If a justice found a section of the law to be unconstitutional then the remedy should be to strike it down and let congress deal with it. How could the court side with the administration if it believed that this section is unconstitutional. That sounds like the court rewriting the law. Am I missing something?
I think you missed the point of that quote. Try reading the story.
Perhaps you could offer us your own understanding of the point?
Perhaps you could read the actual quote and use some common sense. Do you really think his point was that that there is something wrong with the law because it was written by white women and minorities?
Hint: see the part about dead white men?
If he meant that PPACA was written in recent times by living people, as opposed to ancient times by people long since dead, why did he bring up women and minorities? I wonder what was coloring his judgement before he spoke on the record and for attribution?
Perhaps you could answer the question.
From the article:
[quote=]
“It hasn’t had time to ‘grow’ or ‘evolve,’” Carvin added, a jab that mocks terms liberals have used for constitutional doctrines that conservatives have argued aren’t supported by the Constitution.
[/quote]
Bolding mine
Certainly you are familiar with the term “dead white men”
Certainly you are familiar with the term “Your point, please?”
IANAL, but the way I understand it is that this would fall under the canon of “constitutional avoidance.” Broadly, Kennedy seems to think that buying into the plaintiff’s reading of the law would render it as being unconstitutionally coercive, and this argument is especially pronounced now in light of the 2012 case which found that the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive & thus optional. Long established Court precedent mandates that SCOTUS not interpret laws in a way which would make them unconstitutional, and this canon - as far as I understand it - actually comes before the Court would ever get to Chevron deference.
In other words, Kennedy would have to side with the administration’s interpretation, because siding with King et al. would potentially make the ACA unconstitutional.
Oh, no, I didn’t miss a thing. Let me break it down for you:
There was the point he was trying to make (about the recency of the law, and how liberal arguments about an ‘evolving’ Constitution couldn’t apply here), which could have been made without any aside about the law having been written by white women and minorities.
Then there was the needless aside about the law having been written by white women and minorities, which says a great deal about the guy who said it, don’t’cha think?
He may not have intended to make the point that he’s got issues about women and minorities, but he made it nonetheless.
Just a hunch, based on some knowledge of RW caricatures of the sane: Carvin may, *may *have intended to say that liberals’ *real *objection to Constitutional readings anchored solely in the understandings of the late 1700’s is not that they can be anachronistic and result in poor law, but that they were written by white men. If that’s where he’s coming from, then I can see how his apparent attempt at a jab is something **yorick73 **thought was clever enough to snicker at.
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation
If this poll is accurate, there isn’t going to be much of a political price to pay for repealing it.
Here’s the link to the poll.
Please read instead of linking to an IBD article that cherry-picked one stat.
For example, this is interesting:
So? that just means grandfathering. And while “only” 42% want repeal, that’s more than a high enough number that it wouldn’t do much to republicans in the next elections if they repealed it.
So if they like their policy they want to be able to keep it?