Justice Kennedy's Comments Stir the Tea Leaves on Obamacare

[still_one]

"A Supreme Court justice wouldn’t use a congressional hearing to signal his vote on Obamacare, would he?

Justice Anthony Kennedy sent a ripple through the universe of court watchers Monday when he told lawmakers that the justices should interpret statutes without worrying about congressional gridlock.

Kennedy didn’t specifically mention the Affordable Care Act, but his comments prompted immediate speculation that he will read the law as barring crucial tax subsidies to insurance purchasers in two-thirds of the country–leaving it to the president and Congress to negotiate what would seem an unlikely fix."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/justice-kennedy-s-comments-stir-the-tea-leaves-on-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo

I do not have enough words to express my contempt for Kennedy. Ironically, the only thing that had kept Kennedy in check was O'Conner, who when she was ready to step down, created with her Bush V Gore decision, the court we have today.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Tea Leaves, or Tea Bags? nt

[still_one]

2. Sure seems that is what he has become

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. It would be a great issue for us but not worth the damage done./NT

[Old and In the Way]

4. Obviouly, the answer is to elect a Republican.

Because they would be no different than a Democrat. Amirite? This is what morons and poltical perfectionists don't get. Change is made when perfectio its side with incrementalists to make this a better country. When they side with morons, we get morons like W. AS pretzeldent.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. This ^ ^ ^

[still_one]

6. The issues we are having with the court right now have all been caused by republican appointed

justices. I am sure it is just a coincidence.........


NOT

[Autumn]

34. Clarence Thomas. Joe Biden. I'm sure that was just a coincidence.........

Sometimes, it just not the republicans appointing them that's the problem.

[still_one]

36. You can blame Joe Biden for Clarence Thomas, but my point was that these were republican appointees.

They successfully blocked Bork, and no question about it, he screwed up on Thomas, but the actual appointment was made by the republicans.

[Autumn]

39. Yes he was appointed by a republican. I watched every minute of those hearings on Thomas.

The appointment by a republican wasn't the problem in his case.

[still_one]

40. I didn't disagree with your point, only stating that the SC matters, and appointments by

republicans are very different than appointments by Democrats

[Autumn]

41. Yes very true, but it's the fight, or lack of fight that has us where we are today.

If Obama nominated a sc justice today, the pukes would fight it tooth and nail. If say, God forbid in 20016 a republican president appointed one I have no doubt that the Democrats would give in, bipartisanship ya know.

[still_one]

42. sadly, I think your assessment is right on

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Go get 'em, Sport

Nobody on DU wants that, but we can never be too careful, amirite?

[Old and In the Way]

11. Manny, when you disagree with my opinions...

I know I am on the democratic side of the issue. You could be a Republican or a naive Independent....hard to tell which. You can alert snd see if you win, though.

[rufus dog]

12. very kind of you

He could be a tool

He could be a troll

He could be a great American

Now, try and alert on that! All valid possibilities.

[MFrohike]

28. What a simplistic saw

Kennedy was confirmed 97-0. Scalia was confirmed 98-0. I'd say it was a teensy bit more complicated than just a Republican president.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Oh what a pile of #%*& we make

when at first, we practice to triangulate.

[Old and In the Way]

13. "No Manny, that is a Republican jurist, nominated by a Republican Preisident that may kill Obamacare

Millions of people will lose their subsidies and Republicans will destroy the best healthcare opportunity they we have had. As the board's "resident"socialist, it does not surprise me me in the least that you are supporting a Republican verdict...and blaming it on "triangulation". That is what apologists do. The next time I read a post from you that critizes a Republican (spare me the 1:50 links), I will be surprized.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Today's Republican Party is dispicable beyond words

They are largely crazies, grifters, and idiots.

But tell me: why did Lincoln fire his losing generals, when it was the Confederacy that was causing all the trouble?

[Old and In the Way]

17. oh, thanks for the oblgatory "Opposition are idiots' 2 sentence acknowledgement of no Republican

wrongdoing, but lets get back to hating viable Democrats....like Hillary. !W t f does thist have to do with Lincoln firing his Generals 150 years ago.? Were any named Hillary Rodam Clinton? If so, what battle did she lose and.......is she a zombie?

[MannyGoldstein]

18. You're cute.

That is all.

[Old and In the Way]

21. From you Manny, that is a compliment.

Unfortunately, neither one of us know how cute we are, but I will bet you are a very handsome, yet lonely, man.

[MADem]

20. The "obfuscation and distraction" game gets old, doesn't it?

It's pretty easy to spot once you realize that's what the game is, though!

[Old and In the Way]

25. What is fascinatinating to me is a defender of the Republican majorirty..

Because.....TRIANGULATION!!!!Just like HRC.....because HRC = (whatever moron wins the Republican nomination) = SAME! Please forget what you have witnessed over the past 40 years, your reality does not count. CLINTON= BUSH = (-NADER)=OBAMA = IMHOFE =CLINTON. See? All the same QED.

Because someone told me they are the same and I don't have to see the difference! Therefore, elect Republicans. Win!!!!!!

[MADem]

26. Well, when I pull the string, I don't like what I see at the other end, frankly.

I hope my eyes are failing me, but it looks, to me, like "distraction with a purpose."

I suppose it's just as well that no one tells them that this little club isn't an "opinion leader" on the national stage--so if they're spending money to disrupt, let them keep on doing it--it's money they're wasting!

[Old and In the Way]

14. Republicans are the best triangulators I know.

They are the ones that want to divide the Party ever opportunity they get. Some even practice their craft here! Not you, Manny...you want us to elect someone not even running! Awesome!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. The top ten percent had great health care prior to the ACA.

They seem the most aggrieved by it.

[still_one]

16. The people who brought this case are not even affected by the ACA.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Hopefully the top 1% can save the 90% from the dreaded 10%. nt

[elleng]

10. Trying to read tea leaves based on today's colloquy is silly, imo.

'Kennedy, the court's most frequent swing vote, hinted he was open to backing the administration.

Kennedy told a lawyer challenging the tax subsidies that "there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument." The justice said that limiting subsidies to the handful of states that have set up their own insurance exchanges, as the challengers seek, might amount to unconstitutional coercion of the states that did not set up their own markets, pressuring them to do so.

Kennedy intimated he might interpret a disputed four-word phrase in a way that avoided that problem, and saved the Obamacare tax credits. . .

Jump ahead to the congressional hearing . . .

"Some people say that should affect the way we interpret the statutes. That seems to me a wrong proposition. We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government." . .

Nor is it at all obvious Kennedy had health care on his mind when he spoke before the congressional panel.

And, of course, even if Kennedy backs the Obamacare challengers, the administration still can hope for winning over Roberts. . .

Adler wasn’t buying it, saying Kennedy was merely describing the court's established approach toward statutory interpretation.

"There is," Adler tweeted, "nothing new in that statement."'

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/justice-kennedy-s-comments-stir-the-tea-leaves-on-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo

[tblue37]

22. I don't see why he thinks they must assume that all three branches are fully functioning when

all the evidence clearly says otherwise.

[elleng]

23. Because he must.

The Court cannot consider issues not in the records of cases before them.

I know many people have a difficult time accepting the role of courts, especially the Supreme Court, but they do their job, examine the matters before them according to precedent.

[tblue37]

24. And then, if they're partisan Republicans, they ignore precedent whenever necessary to arrive at the

outcome they prefer.

[graegoyle]

27. And if they think that their decision is particularly egregious...

They just say, "This decision should not be considered a precedent--even though that is, practically, the most important aspect of our decisions--in this one little instance where we went way out of our jurisdiction."

[jwirr]

38. W in 2000.

[karynnj]

33. Thanks for your posts here -- interpreting this to mean support of overthrowing ACA seems lame

If you think of it, he might simply being saying that the SC is not suppose to over function because the Congress is in gridlock.

This does not mean they will not consider the intent of the framers of that law. To me, the fact that the CBO given the charter to score each and every version of the bill NEVER even questioned how this should be interpreted -- and not a single legislator, Democratic or Republican called them on it when reviewing the estimates, means something. If that were the normal reading of the provision -- then wouldn't SOMEONE there have questioned it - when the response would have been both that no, that it is not what anyone meant and a change in the 4 words.

[PoliticAverse]

29. So the author of this article thinks Supreme Court decisions should be based on politics not law? nt

[B Calm]

30. It's a Blomberg author.

[still_one]

31. Yes, the author is speculating, but based on Kennedy's actions within this

Last edited Tue Mar 24, 2015, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Court I wouldn't count on him anyway. The wording

hinges on the words "established by the state".

Roberts will be the deciding factor whether 7 million people lose their insurance

There is no way that I see this republican congress rectifying the situation if the SC votes it down

[karynnj]

35. However, I think context matters -- it is NOT just the 4 words, but the words that surround them

I think it is telling that the non partisan CBO scored every version of the ACA. In each, it interpreted the law as including subsidies to residents in all states. These estimates when to Congress -- and there was not one legislator who disputed how this was done.

To me, this suggests that the people writing the law and the economists/analysts hired to professionally score the bill did not even seen that there could be an alternative meaning. Not to mention, they included funding for a national system for states that did not create one - and it included defining what the subsidies would be.

[still_one]

37. I agree with your view

[UTUSN]

32. Exactly what "swing" votes has he ever cast?!1 n/t