So what do you think the Supreme Court will do re: ACA?

[maxrandb]

The way I understand it, someone found one sentence in the ACA where it appears that subsidies were only for State Exchanges, while 99.9% of the other areas where this is discussed appear to equate the State Exchange with the Federal one run "for" the States. Somehow, this idiocy made it all the way to the highest court in the land.

I’ve kind of learned to expect anything with this Supreme Court, especially with the 5 Court Jesters of conservative ideology holding the majority, but could they really gut the ACA like this? I’m not a legal expert, but wouldn’t they have to just about throw out centuries of precedent regarding “intent” and “context” to pick a failed wording in one clause to throw out clear intent in a thousand other sentences?

Again, I don’t pretend to be a lawyer, but shouldn’t this be as simple as calling the folks who wrote and passed the law, and asking them what the “intent” was? Clearly, the law in several places equates the Federal Exchange with the State Exchange.

I don’t understand why this is even up for discussion. Call the people who wrote the law and ask them. Wouldn’t that be all that is required to find that the intent of the law was that purchasing coverage on the “exchange” whether State, or Federal run “for” the State, would qualify you for the subsidy?

I’m apprehensive about this Supreme Court somehow ruling in favor of the plaintiff, even if they would throw out centuries of common sense and jurisprudence to do it.

Would they really do that? Could they really do that?

[atreides1]

1. It'll depend

On whether the Republicans give Roberts and the Four Horsemen a CYA guarantee!

Currently the buzz from the lying sacks of crap known for their integrity, is that they are looking at an alternative to replace the ACA...this will allow Roberts the cover he'll need not to be seen as the man who took away health care from millions of Americans!

And if Roberts and his drinking buddies decide to screw over those Americans, they can always blame the politicians!

[maxrandb]

5. "They" have been

looking at an "alternative" to replace the ACA for 6 years now.

They have no intent to do anything. All the Repukes want is to try to trash this president's legacy.

If they put as much energy into fixing our crumbling infrastructure and dangerous economic inequality as they do trying to "nullify" the Presidency of Obama, we may have actually got some stuff done.

[Nye Bevan]

2. John Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to save the ACA in 2012.

Given that since then Obamacare has been pretty successful I would be surprised if he would now decide to throw a grenade into it.

[YarnAddict]

3. This is the way it works

Wasn't it the phrase "provide for the general welfare" on which the entire New Deal and all subsequent safety net programs was based? (In fact, at one time the cash assistance programs administered by the counties were called General Welfare.)

This one could easily go either way. Roberts STUNNED the RW by upholding the Constitutionality of the ACA, so he may support it again. OTOH, he pissed off a lot of people who haven't forgiven him, and he may feel he needs to back off on this one in order to please them.

[rock]

4. They are so full of shit that

They'll have to shit in their hand then realize they've made a worse mistake and slap themselves in the forehead!

[procon]

6. It takes four justices to grant a case for review

so maybe the conservatives on the Roberts court want to take a swipe at Obama by raising the possibility of wrecking his signature healthcare accomplishment.

The Republicans case hinges on a single phrase in the ACA that they believe only authorizes credits in exchanges “established by the state,” and they further say that their interpretation of these few words has such serious consequences that it invalidates the entire healthcare law.

In a series of amicus briefs, the Democratic authors of the bill and scores of current and former members of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures deny that interpretation and state the the Principals in Congress did not intend for subsidies to be restricted.

They note that the intent of Congress was clear [.link:http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/01/no-congress-never-intended-limit-obamacare-subsidies-state-exchanges|the CBO modeled studies] on exchange subsidies available nationwide and there were no objections when it produced numerous reports on universal state subsidies. They also cite numerous reports from Federal and state agencies discussing the pros and cons to creating a state-run exchange, none of which assumed tax credits would not be available.

Just this week, even more NGOs, medical facilities, ancillary healthcare professionals and unions have joined the Democrats in filing a number of other amicus briefs supporting the government.

If the SCOTUS believes the Republican's claim vs the actual authors of the bill, how do they ignore the consequences that would have a real world impact and hurt so many Americans?

[Orsino]

7. Lie.

They may not do away with ACA, but they will not squander an apportunity to make it suck more.

It's a job too dirty for today's GOP to risk being seen at.