[ad_1]
Straight Ahead: The Affordable Care Act still exists and will continue to exist until the Supreme Court says something about this harsh political decision of this hateful ideological judge. The question before us now is really what the Supreme Court will do. So let's answer it.
First, before the decision goes to the Supreme Court, it will be considered by the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. Suppose for the moment that the fifth circuit, filled with conservatives from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, confirms last Friday's decision. It is composed of 10 judges appointed by the Republican presidents (including four by Donald Trump) and five judges appointed by the Democrats. Presumably, pro-Obamacare litigants will appeal to the Supremes, who seem to have three basic options.
First, they may decide not to hear it and let the Fifth Circuit's decision advance it. Two, they can support the Obamacare repeal. Third, they can cancel the fifth circuit and save Obamacare.
For now, I'm betting – and obviously, I hope – that the court will choose the third option. I think John Roberts will join the four Liberals in quashing that decision. The legal basis is simple and concerns the fact that the judge did not recognize the intention of Congress to treat separate sections of the law separately ("separability" in jargon).
In law, this decision should be overturned 9-0. If you missed the Saturday editorial of the New York Times by Jonathan Adler and Father Gluck, go read it. It's ruthless. Adler and Gluck have both been involved in a dispute with ACA – against Adler and Gluck for. You think that, given that, they could not agree on something like that, but it's true. They clearly explain why this decision is illegal and they leave the guts of this hack judge on the ground.
So, yes, he should be 9-0. But it will probably not be. At least three judges – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – have rarely demonstrated that they were agents other than the Republican Party. Brett Kavanaugh, we do not know much yet. Adler and Gluck note that his writings suggest that he should reject this judge's reasoning. But we have all seen this movie before, is not it?
Which brings us to Roberts. He has been conscious in the past (in fact in the first Obamacare case) of the position of the court and the consequences of its decisions on the real world. From time to time, he even seems to recognize that general well-being exists, which the Conservatives despise of course.
And even if he's making fun of millions of people with cancer, he cares about everything. the reputation of his court, which will be destroyed if a majority follows the reasoning of this judge and produces an obvious political decision. Destroy. Right now it's a 50-40 vote, approve, disapprove. I do not doubt that these figures will reverse and will remain so for a long time. Roberts cares about that.
And it's just that a judge cares about that. They are not God on the mount. Sinai They make decisions that affect lives, make justice too fast or hinder justice, and they should take care of it. I would have liked them to do more, so that they do not take immediate decisions like: "Racism has practically disappeared from electoral politics, we do not want to do it. so we need more of a law on the right to vote "(no, they have not removed it with the full act for now, but it is almost surely to come.
Indeed, the mention of the VRA reminds me that I could be wrong in my optimism. Maybe Roberts will do it. Perhaps he will see it as another example of calling bullets and strikes. To confirm that decision would be to strike a ball that fell in the fifth row, but who knows?
And of course, I guess the four Liberals today are still here. And if, to put it mildly, destiny had other plans?
The court may therefore confirm this judge and repeal Obamacare on this unstable ground. Then what? Obviously, I hope that will not happen. But I admit that the little devil on my other shoulder would like to see what will happen to these bastards if they do it. They would pay for it for 20 years.
They will not propose anything better. There is nothing better, at least in the terms they discuss. There is only worse and meaner, and they have already started in this way with the tax bill last year, which eliminated the penalty imposed by law to people who did not buy health insurance .
They have no plan to insure the uninsured. They do not want to insure the uninsured. Oh, maybe, if you are basically healthy and reasonably well off (which makes you statistically more likely to be white, which is only a coincidence, honestly!). But if people are sick and poor, forget that. Republicans do not want to insure these people. They think these people are moochers, as Mitt Romney so aptly put it when he thought no one was recording it. If they die, they die. Reduce the excess population, as one famous republican repeated during a well-known Christmas period.
I've never seen any more disgusting hypocrisy for 30 years writing about these people than what we saw during the election season, under the leadership of Republican candidates. around swearing their devotion to people with preexisting conditions, even if they were seeking to join a congress that voted to repeal Obamacare 70 times and will continue to do so if and when Republicans get their way; Although some candidates, including Missouri's Josh Hawley, were parties to the lawsuit filed last Friday
Fortunately, most voters did not buy it, although Hawley was elected by a depressing margin (Missourians, when & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; He voted to repeal Obamacare, will you know that he was lying?). And if this trial succeeds, these people have no idea what kind of rage they will trigger. No idea.
And they will set the stage for a massive rollback. I have not supported Medicare for all, for practical reasons, but if they do, they will pave the way for Medicare for all in a few years, because they will convert me, as well as millions of others, into adherents. [19659002] For years, Republicans have been able to hide to some extent behind the complexity of the law. Most people do not really understand why it's a lie when a Republican says he is in favor of covering people with preexisting conditions (because they oppose the specific steps to take to provide such coverage ). But they are interested.
And if that decision is upheld, people will know it. They will know that the Republican Party has blown up the health system. No party has ever done anything like this in our history. Imagine Republicans in the 1950s taking Social Security off, or Republicans in the 1920s repealing child labor laws, or Democrats in the 1880s (yes, they were Democrats at the time) finding a sneaky way to deny the freedom of the black people of servitude.
All these things are unthinkable. But with today's GOP, nothing is unthinkable. John Roberts, we're watching you.
Source link
