General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCelerity
(43,349 posts)Claustrum
(4,845 posts)Celerity
(43,349 posts)Spazito
(50,332 posts)Don't underestimate the influence he will have on the other republican justices to have at least one of the 5 others side with him and the left leaning justices.
Roberts is very, very aware of his legacy and the risk to the credibility of the Supreme Court under his 'care'.
StClone
(11,683 posts)Make incremental changes (rulings) which make the law almost dead but there in name. Like the mandate.
Spazito
(50,332 posts)so Congress can shore up ACA which reduces the USSC's opportunities to affect it.
calimary
(81,261 posts)This is, was, and will live in history as The ROBERTS Court. Like the Rehnquist Court. And the Warren Court. Its always referred to by whoever is Chief Justice.
So its HIS name on this court and I suspect hes not going to want HIS name associated with screwing millions of Americans out of their health care.
Spazito
(50,332 posts)DEbluedude
(816 posts)Dems should preface every mention of the supremes The Roberts Court... When he knows that his legacy will be tarnished by the specter of extreme partisanship that in the extreme could foment civil war, his thought process may change a bit.
calimary
(81,261 posts)marble falls
(57,081 posts)soothsayer
(38,601 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,653 posts)Bradshaw3
(7,521 posts)In two weeks.
SilasSouleII
(363 posts)The best most beautiful plan ever
Bradshaw3
(7,521 posts)Really big. No plan but it was big. And beautiful.
LaMouffette
(2,030 posts)Dead people don't need health care.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Isn't overturning ACA one of the reasons they are there?
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)We will see. Anyway
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Here's and article from CNBC today:
"The Affordable Care Act seems likely to withstand its third challenge at the Supreme Court.
"Several of the courts conservatives expressed an unwillingness to strike down the landmark legislation during oral arguments in a case brought by red states seeking to eliminate the law.
"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both suggested that the court may eliminate a challenged provision of the law, known as the individual mandate, while leaving the rest of the law standing."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/10/supreme-court-appears-willing-to-leave-obamacare-in-place-.html?__source=newsletter%7Cbreakingnews
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)It's the only way it can be funded.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ACA remain intact. It will.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Merlot
(9,696 posts)KatyMan
(4,190 posts)So it'll stop being brought to them?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)If it survives this particular legal approach, that doesn't mean it will survive other approaches currently making their way to the high court.
Ultimately, ALL federal social welfare programs will be on the block. That's why the court is being packed with political activists whose ideology is far to the right of most Americans, including Trump's base.
Also on the block is the "right to privacy." Can government make contraception illegal and imprison people for buying, possessing, and/or using it?
Do people have a right to a free and open internet or can governments and providers limit what we can see?
These same justices very correctly say there is no wording in the constitution that protects these rights. Both were "inferred" by liberal courts. Both, and all other hugely important rights resting on this inference, are currently in great danger.
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)This is a radical court.. We must not lose sight of that.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)textualist and originalist schools of thoughts. They're dishonest constructions for blocking the liberalization of society, including the liberalization of equality, power and wealth, that is an inevitable part of its evolution.
Those who created the constitution were mostly attorneys creating a new form of government that had never been tried before. After years of deep thought and discussion, THIS is what these attorneys produced:
My pocket copy only used the pages in front of the center staples for the text. The left-over, second half of the pages is filled with a little basic explanation.
Among other things, the Industrial Revolution had already reached America. They couldn't have begun to comprehend the changes it would bring, but this extremely basic set of laws, a basic framework, shows they understood their nation required a "living constitution" that could evolve with the nation over time and adjust to changing circumstances.
CrispyQ
(36,463 posts)My pocket Constitution is packed with tons of fun facts & useful info.
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)I think the Constitution should have at least 50 amendments by now..
I also have my pocket constitution printed by the Heritage Foundation I checked it carefully to make sure they didnt make changes..
Backseat Driver
(4,392 posts)empedocles
(15,751 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)brought before them IS their job. It can be confusing to follow, but would result in a crippling gutting, not a "striking down." That would presumably be called for by one of the several other cases making their way to the high court.
Some of the big results listed by Nancy Pelosi are very easy to understand:
Link to tweet
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)The law itself is not unconstitutional, though there may be pieces of it that are questionable. There is no reason for the SC to strike the entire thing down based on one or two things that can specifically be removed or changed.
I think the SC is going to uphold the whole thing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Does not affect other parts.
jmbar2
(4,886 posts)No one sounds very persuaded by the arguments again the ACA mandate.
Amy Coney Barret's voice has an extremely grating quality.
world wide wally
(21,743 posts)as instructed to by the stable genius (madman)
marie999
(3,334 posts)world wide wally
(21,743 posts)I hope you're right
marie999
(3,334 posts)Eyeball_Kid
(7,432 posts)after a few brews.
yaesu
(8,020 posts)Roc2020
(1,616 posts)as a shotgun over the heads of the GOP come 2022 midterms. They will try and find a way to keep the law.
barbtries
(28,793 posts)but this is encouraging.
Ford_Prefect
(7,895 posts)Conservatives like him have a way of saying what sounds like one thing when what they intend and will do are the opposite outcome.
Lawyers doubly so.
That both Roberts and Kavanaugh are making public statements now sounds like the setup for a knee-capping of the ACA. It won't be struck down as such, just incapacitated, de-funded and functionally undone. They will leave it tied in legal knots that a divided congress will certainly never repair.
elleng
(130,895 posts)At a Supreme Court argument Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh suggested that striking down one provision would not doom the balance of the law.
'The bulk of the Affordable Care Act, the sprawling 2010 health care law that is President Barack Obamas defining domestic legacy, appeared likely to survive its latest encounter with the Supreme Court in arguments on Tuesday.
It was not clear whether the court would strike down the so-called individual mandate, which was rendered toothless in 2017 after Congress zeroed out the penalty for failing to obtain insurance.
But at least five justices, including two members of the courts conservative majority, indicated that they were not inclined to strike down the balance of the law. In legal terms, they said the mandate was severable from the rest of the law.
It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the law in place, said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/supreme-court-obamacare-aca.html
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)...cover for their future insane abortion decision.
AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)congress obviously did not strike down the law, so it makes no sense that the court would do it, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Without the mandate, ACA still works just fine and can be further improved upon by Biden by requiring medicaid expansion.
bdamomma
(63,849 posts)in your face you filthy repigs.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)Blue Owl
(50,361 posts)Aww, what a pity...
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,972 posts)torius
(1,652 posts)depend on the ACA. Maybe some SCOTUS want their kids to be able to stay on it. Republicans see the value in things that benefit THEM.
bucolic_frolic
(43,161 posts)and is - sanely - showing less and less interest in deciding contentious issues. Courts know their purpose - law and long term stability of society. I think they will give us a little of this, and a little of that going forward, blending outcomes to give each side something.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,563 posts)I don't know how much of the....sanity?...in SCOTUS one can attribute to Roberts, but I must say I've been pleasantly surprised. By the same token, we haven't seen the new Ideologue Version of the court do anything as yet. There's the acid test.