Far be it from me to predict final outcome of the Supreme Court’s final determination on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, based on the arguments from the first two days, it’s looking ugly. My best guess is that they will overturn it, but don’t ask me to bet on it.
With the fate of President Obama’s health care law hanging in the balance, a lawyer for the administration faced a barrage of skeptical questions on Tuesday from four of the Supreme Court’s more conservative justices, suggesting that a 5-to-4 decision to strike down the law was a live possibility.
Predicting the result in any Supreme Court case, much less one that will define the legacies of a president and a chief justice, is nothing like a science, and the case could still turn in various directions. But the available evidence indicated that the heart of the Affordable Care Act is in peril.
The court’s decision is expected by June, and much may change as the justices deliberate and exchange draft opinions in the coming months.
If the indications from Tuesday’s arguments are correct, though, the ruling may undo parts or all of the overhaul of the health insurance system, deal Mr. Obama a political blow in the midst of the presidential election season, and revise the constitutional relationship between the federal government and the states.
The tone on Tuesday made a question to be addressed in the third and final day of arguments on Wednesday all the more important: If the individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty fell, what other parts of the law would fall along with it?
On Tuesday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s swing justice, asked a host of questions indicating discomfort with the law… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
I strongly recommend clicking through for the rest of this article.
Rachel Maddow covered the story in two segments. In the first she questions the credibility of the Court.
Imagine what might have happened had Bush and the Republicans not been enabled to steal the 2000 election. A more competent administration would not have ignored the warnings, so 9/11 probably would never have happened. We might have avoided war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ‘War on Terror’, torture and all the other fascist trappings of the Republican Bush Regime. But Rachel was right. Florida could not have been stolen had not the vote been so close. This not only pertains to the Republican War on Voting Rights, that Rachel discusses, but also, on the danger inherent in lefties voting for third-party candidates.
In case, you’re wondering about “broccoli”, Republicans (and the right wing Injustices) are trying to compare health insurance with broccoli, saying that people should have a choice on whether or not to buy broccoli. The argument is absurd. Nothing forces people into the broccoli market, but illness and injury force people into the health care market all the time. Virtually everyone finds themselves in the health care market at some time in their lives. That makes health care unlike markets governed completely by preference, such as the broccoli market.
In the second, Rachel and Dahlia Lithwick discuss the arguments and the role of public opinion.
As things stand now we have a system where people who choose not to buy health insurance get emergency room care that the rest of us pay for. The individual mandate simply requires that everyone take responsibility for their own care and makes provision for those unable to do it for themselves.