Supreme Court appears to signal Obamacare will survive latest GOP challenge

  • Thread starter Thread starter RidgeSprinter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RidgeSprinter

Guest
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Tuesday that it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s role to invalidate the entire sprawling, 900-page Affordable Care Act, even if one or more provisions are deemed unconstitutional, signaling the key parts of Obamacare will survive the latest court challenge.
Roberts said simply that if Trump and Republicans wanted to kill the law, they could have done it.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” Roberts told the attorney representing Texas, one of the states fighting the law.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts added.
In court Barrett too, zeroed in on the intent of Congress in 2017.

"So what should we make of the fact that Congress didn’t repeal the provision?" she asked.
 
Last edited:
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Tuesday that it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s role to invalidate the entire sprawling, 900-page Affordable Care Ac
That sounds consistent. When they looked at the Communications and Decency Act of 1996 (most known for Section 230( c )) all those years ago, they only invalidated the parts of it that violated the First Amendment. The rest of it stands
 
Last edited:
Poor Trump… nothing seems to work for him now. 😉 Of course Chief Justice Roberts said very clearly, that there are no Obama Judges and no Trump Judges… there are only the Supreme Court judges, who are expected not to be partisan.
 
The individual mandate was questionable all along. Roberts had to twist the language way back when in order for it to survive in the beginning so the mandate was always on very thin ice. Without the mandate, the rest of it is just a different but legal way to structure health care. Not well thought out to be sure nor is it friendly to consumers but those are different problems not requiring SCOTUS to interfere and that is essentially what Roberts and Kavanagh are hinting at.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top