The Supreme Court Is Now a Death Panel

[n2doc]

By Brian Beutler

Back in March 2011, when the biggest threats facing Obamacare were the Supreme Court and the 2012 elections, I argued that the demise of the Affordable Care Act would put people’s lives in immediate danger.

At the time, the law had relatively few beneficiaries—people under 26 covered by their parents’ health plans, a small population of people with pre-existing medical conditions. But some of them had already used their new coverage to finance the kinds of life-saving treatments that would leave them in need of chronic care for the rest of their lives. Take away the health law, and most of these organ transplant recipients and other patients would have become unable to afford their medications, and some of them would die.

Since then, millions of people have gained coverage under the law, and that group of chronic care patients has grown much larger. But despite the fact that the Court upheld the law, and President Obama won reelection, the ACA isn’t out of danger.

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine whether the federal government can continue to subsidize private ACA coverage in states that didn’t set up their own insurance exchanges.

more

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120206/supreme-court-obamacare-decision-king-v-burwell-life-or-death

[savalez]

1. Correct me if I'm wrong

but the SC didn't need to agree to take the case because it was going to be decided soon in another court and the whole thing would've ended right there with the courts deciding in favor of the ACA. Since it only takes 4 SC judges to accept a case then it's fair to assume that the same 4 judges that wanted to kill the ACA altogether are the ones that decided to take the case now. Correct? Is it that simple?

[MH1]

2. There was discussion on NPR this morning that seemed to say what you just did.

"it's fair to assume that the same 4 judges that wanted to kill the ACA altogether are the ones that decided to take the case now" - in different words but similar conclusion, if I understood it correctly.

[savalez]

3. So this is another

case of Judicial activism at its worst. Did they speculate on what the outcome might be? Also, it seems to me that this will hurt Red states the most, right?

[alfredo]

5. It doesn't matter if it hurts the Red States, they will blindly follow anyone with the R.

[Rstrstx]

6. One thing to consider

There would be absolutely no guarantee the issue would have ended right there, the same ilk who filed Halbig and King could just go to another court of their liking (the 5th or 6th are very conservative) and get them to issue a ruling in their favor. Then the supremes are forced to deal with it, only a few years later.

Do you think the court is going to get more liberal in the next couple of years? (remember any Obama nominee would have to get through the Senate)

[onenote]

9. You aren't right or wrong.

A three judge panel of the Fourth Circuit upheld the law. A three judge panel of the DC Circuit struck it down, but the full circuit agreed to hear it "en banc." Because of the political make up of the DC Circuit, it is widely assumed that the full court will uphold the law.

While, strictly speaking, there currently is no split in the circuits (because the DC decision is vacated pending decision en banc) and while it is likely there won't be a split after the full DC Circuit reconsiders the three judge ruling, whether or not the Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear a case is a matter of discretion. In other words, while a split in the circuits makes it much more likely the Court will take a case, it doesn't have to. Moreover, the Court's rules state a number of other situations in which certiorari will be considered appropriate, including when "a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court".

Thus, it should be no surprise that the Court had at least four members who wanted to hear the case. There are two other cases raising the exchange issue that are pending in other circuits; while predicting the outcome is tricky, both of those circuits have more repub appointed members (if you include members on senior status) than judges appointed by Democrats. The case arising in the Tenth Circuit was just decided (against the law) at the end of September. The case from the Seventh Circuit is still pending in the District Court. Given the possibility that one or more of these cases will strike down the law, it is likely that even the Democrats on the Court were not strongly opposed to hearing the case now.

[savalez]

10. Thank you for the detailed reply.

I appreciate it.

[moondust]

4. Rec.

[napkinz]

7. K&R

nt

[napkinz]

8. ...