I don’t buy this answer, but then I’m not a Supreme Court justice. More accurately, I’m not Anthony Kennedy. Sounds like Barack Obama got one right, for a change – and by that I mean not doing anything to prepare for an adverse decision. Well, you win the gamble, you rake in your winnings.
Moe Lane
PS: As to how I’m feeling? Fine, actually. Read this poem as to why. Bearing in mind that I’m identifying with the barbarians.
Found here. Short version: the new governor wants it, the state legislature maybe doesn’t, and everybody’s waiting for King v. Burwell. What fun…
This is a somewhat interesting article on CNN about the perils for Democrats if the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell: not least because it’s fairly clear that the author would rather that there not be any perils for Democrats at all. Nonetheless, the article does concede that the original mad optimism that Democrats showed in thinking that the elimination of federal Obamacare subsidies would backfire on Republicans was mad optimism, and maybe not particularly justified mad optimism as that. But there’s an even worse potential problem for Democrats: what’s their Plan B?
Because the Republicans have a bunch of Plan Bs. Senator Bill Cassidy of [Louisiana] wants to set up an alternative Health Savings Account (HSA) program. Representative Tom Price of Georgia wants to try tax credits and pooling coverage. And there’s even Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin’s exquisite poison pill of a bill where Congress puts back the subsidies… in exchange for a repeal of the individual and employee mandates. All of these plans can’t be implemented at the same time, of course. There’s no way that they could be. But they are, in fact, plans: and should King v. Burwell be decided against the government I expect that we’ll see a Republican consensus hammered together over a long weekend.
Which is why the plaintiffs might win.
Background here (via here): the short version is that the Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments on King v. Burwell (which is effectively the same as Halbig v. Burwell). For those who don’t remember, the underlying issue is whether Obamacare actually gives the President the ability to provide subsidies to people who use state-sponsored Obamacare exchanges AND the federally-provided one, or whether the law only permits subsidies for users of the state exchanges. The administration’s defenders, apologists, and sycophants have been arguing that it’s all due to a typo or a technicality… and in the face of some compelling counter-arguments (and not a few amused head-shakes), including some inadvertent coutner-arguments from those who helped create the legislation in the first place.
Anyway, regarding the actual scope of the case; this is a very important point that was made by Philip Klein. Assuming the court found for plaintiffs:
…Instead, [the Supreme Court would] merely be ruling that the administration wasn’t following Obamacare as written.
[snip]
The case now before the court is not making a constitutional claim that Congress doesn’t have the power to pass federal exchange subsidies, but merely that the statute they wrote did not authorize such subsidies
…And the remedy for that claim is very simple. If it truly was the intent of Congress to give the administration the power to provide Obamacare subsidies even in states that did not set up a healthcare exchange, then the Court can simply send the matter back to Congress and have them add whatever authorizations Congress desires to the law. There! Problem solved.
Continue reading King v. Burwell is *not* a major constitutional challenge to Obamacare.
