Is Obamacare too big to fail?

[Amelia]

Might the justices rule that the ACA should stand, mandate and all, because dismantling it would be too complicated?

 

[Valox]

I can't believe I am saying this, but thankfully there are too many Conservatives on the bench. (While I am more liberal than Cons on many issues, I tend to be more of a strict Constitutionalist).

However, given that liberals believe that the state can take people's property away for corporate gain (Kelo vs New London), I am sure that they can wrap their heads around the idea to hand over millions of Americans to the for profit insurance industry.

Liberals make me sick to my stomach sometimes. They are such corporate apologists, yet blame Conservatives. (However, two wrongs don't make a right).

 

[Vidi]

Might the justices rule that the ACA should stand, mandate and all, because dismantling it would be too complicated?

No. All laws can be repealed.

 

[Valox]

Might the justices rule that the ACA should stand, mandate and all, because dismantling it would be too complicated?

No. All laws can be repealed.

This is discomforting given the number times that SCOTUS were repealed. After all, they are the law.

 

[Mac1958]

.

From the snippets I heard from Wednesday's hearing, it does sound like they were almost assuming that the individual mandate is toast, and that they've moved on to whether they should scrap the whole thing. But questions from the supes don't always translate into how they'll decide.

.

 

[Sallow]

Might the justices rule that the ACA should stand, mandate and all, because dismantling it would be too complicated?

It would add a heck of alot to the deficit..and be another fine example of a radical right wing case decision..

Not as radical as citizen's united of course..which conflated the original case, ignored 100 years of precedent, previous cases and congressional legislation.

But close..

 

[Claudette]

No. Its not to big to fail.

 

[dblack]

Might the justices rule that the ACA should stand, mandate and all, because dismantling it would be too complicated?

Scalia seemed to be suggesting it's too big to screw around trying to figure out which bits of it should stay and which should go - but I'm not sure that will sway the vote one way or another. I suppose it could, but something tells me they'll be taking more into consideration than whether the additional workload might cut into their vacation time.

 

[SniperFire]

Might the justices rule that the ACA should stand, mandate and all, because dismantling it would be too complicated?

Scalia asked, incredulously, if it would be expected the Supremes or their clerks go thru the remainder of the 2,700 page bill to decide what should / could stand without the individual mandate.

No. Such a thing would be the job of Congress to figure out with new legislation to fix the Obama-Pelosi-Reid failure.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

More like too big to succeed.
When the supreme court rules it invalid (which they will as it certainly looks). It will be the fault of every Democrat legislature and the White House for rushing through a monstrous-uber complicated mess that no one read. Also despite calls from other legislatures, state attorneys, lawyers, judges etc. etc. saying basically - "hey..this may not be legal" - Democrats voted it in anyway.
It will be their fault alone that health care reform has failed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I pray that Clarence Thomas gets to write the majority opinion

 

[Decepticon]

I pray that Clarence Thomas gets to write the majority opinion

I'd check it for pubic hairs.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I pray that Clarence Thomas gets to write the majority opinion

I'd check it for pubic hairs.

.

 

[Amelia]

I can't remember where I heard it - whether it was a commentator or a clip from one of the justices - but someone suggested that the justices might not want to upend it because it was just too big. They might think it was already affecting too many people for it to be practical to undo it.

So they might swallow the constitutional question and more or less reward the law's authors for making it so huge and complicated.

 

[Vidi]

Might the justices rule that the ACA should stand, mandate and all, because dismantling it would be too complicated?

It would add a heck of alot to the deficit..and be another fine example of a radical right wing case decision..

Not as radical as citizen's united of course..which conflated the original case, ignored 100 years of precedent, previous cases and congressional legislation.

But close..

Its not the SCOTUS job to deal with budget issues. That is squarely in the lap of Congress.

 

[Vidi]

I pray that Clarence Thomas gets to write the majority opinion

There's no way Roberts is not going to write the majority if it gets voted down. Too historic for it not to be written by the chief justice.

I've even heard speculation that he may be the fifth to uphold ACA. And again, he'd write it.

 

[dblack]

I pray that Clarence Thomas gets to write the majority opinion

There's no way Roberts is not going to write the majority if it gets voted down. Too historic for it not to be written by the chief justice.

I've even heard speculation that he may be the fifth to uphold ACA. And again, he'd write it.

I share your 'concern'. I think either he or Kennedy could have been simply grandstanding this week - making it look like they put up a good fight. We'll see I guess.

 

[Freedomlover]

It is too big not to fail! Every social program that has been adopted by the Congress over the past fifty years has ended up costing far more than what was predicted. Obamacare priced at over 1 trillion dollars over ten years will more than likely cost at least 2 trillion.

 

[BluePhantom]

I can't remember where I heard it - whether it was a commentator or a clip from one of the justices - but someone suggested that the justices might not want to upend it because it was just too big. They might think it was already affecting too many people for it to be practical to undo it.

So they might swallow the constitutional question and more or less reward the law's authors for making it so huge and complicated.

I highly doubt it. I have heard the same argument but I think it's far more likely that if they feel it's unconstitutional they will scrap the whole thing rather than let it stand anyhow. I mean can you imagine the reaction if they were to say "ok we think it's unconstitutional but we're going to leave it be regardless". Christ almighty. The SCOTUS has a collective ego remember. It's far more within their personality to say to Congress "you guys really fucked this up so we're going to toss it out to teach you a lesson. Do it right next time" rather than "well it's a mess but we're too lazy to screw with it"

 

[BluePhantom]

I pray that Clarence Thomas gets to write the majority opinion

There's no way Roberts is not going to write the majority if it gets voted down. Too historic for it not to be written by the chief justice.

I've even heard speculation that he may be the fifth to uphold ACA. And again, he'd write it.

I share your 'concern'. I think either he or Kennedy could have been simply grandstanding this week - making it look like they put up a good fight. We'll see I guess.

Historically, that has not been the case. When a justice argues with a lawyer he usually ends up voting against that side's position. Not always, but usually.

"Reporters and analysts who cover the court approach predicting the justices in various ways — some more confident in their judgment than others. But, as with so many things in life, researchers actually have studied the question. Their findings back up a long-standing intuition of lawyers and experienced journalists alike: If a justice keeps interrupting you with questions, your side is in trouble."​

Supreme Court stats don’t bode well for health law - BostonHerald.com