The Supreme Court might be planning for a split-decision in June.

[pnwmom]

They're going to toss progressives and moderates a bone by approving marriage equality -- now that it's so uncontroversial that it's already been ratified in 37 states.

And while people are celebrating that, they'll hardly notice when SCOTUS blows up the ACA, leaving millions with no health insurance and no way to replace it.

This is my fear . . . please convince me I'm wrong.

[arcane1]

1. What do you mean by "blows up the ACA"?

[pnwmom]

3. The majority of states use the Federal exchange and they're considering cases

that would eliminate subsidies for people purchasing through the Federal exchange. This would put the ACA in 36 states in jeopardy.

[uppityperson]

2. Why do you think they are going to blow up the ACA?

[pnwmom]

5. Because they inexplicably decided to take the case before it had legally "ripened."

Normally, they would wait till a case went through the higher level Federal Court before they would accept an appeal. This time, they accepted a case and allowed it to skip a hearing by the appropriate Federal Court (which would probably have ruled in favor of the ACA.) Why did they do that? Maybe because they didn't want it ratified by the more liberal Federal Court -- so they skipped that Court and took the case themselves.

[onenote]

8. Unusual, but not inexplicable

The issue had been addressed by two appellate courts. One (Fourth Circuit) had ruled for the defendants, one (DC Circuit) for the plaintiffs. The full DC Circuit had agreed to rehear the case so, as a technical matter, there wasn't a split in the circuits. Having a split in the circuits is often an important factor in the SCOTUS deciding whether to take a case, but it's not the only standard. In particular, one of the stated standards for granting cert is "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".

If the situation was reversed, I have no doubt we'd all be defending the court for taking the case (it only takes four of the Justices). And if it really was "inexplicable," one or more of the Justices likely would have written a dissent to decision (an unusual move, but one that would be expected with respect to an "inexplicable" decision).

[pnwmom]

9. It's also not inexplicable if the reason was they didn't want the Federal Court

to rule in favor of the ACA if they wanted it to rule against it instead.

But many legal observers were shocked when they agreed to take the case at that point in time.

[onenote]

11. Can't see where it would make a difference

I have no doubt that there were four justices prepared to vote to grant certiorari even if the full DC Circuit upheld the law (which it likely would have done but with dissenting opinions). And had the situation had been reversed, I would not have been surprised if Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer had voted to hear a challenge.

[napkinz]

4. I was thinking the same thing ... a split decision

[Gothmog]

6. I doubt that a split decision would help the SCOTUS

Roberts is worried about the SCOTUS ratings with the public and an adverse decision on the ACA would far outweigh the benefits of a decision on same sex marriage

[Nye Bevan]

7. John Roberts is fine with the ACA.

He twisted himself into a pretzel to save it in 2012. He is not going to toss a grenade at it now.

[Adrahil]

10. If they strike down the subsidies....

they have some spailin' to do.Every Justice has talked about how statutes must be considered in their entirety. If read in its entirety, it is CLEAR that subsidies were not intended to be withheld form those states that had state exchange established by the Federal government. There is no clear notice, which is usually required for any kind of anti-incentive.

[Journeyman]

12. All I can offer is a quote from Twain . . .

"I am an old man and have known many troubles, most of which never happened."

Many thought the Supreme Court would "gut" the ACA the last time it took up the issue, only to be pleasantly surprised. There are many developments in just the last week that give indication this decision won't be as potentially clean-cut as originally surmised.

Let me give you a bit of advice from an old book:

"Sufficient unto the day are the troubles therein."

There's nothing you or I can do about an issue currently on the Court's docket. Let us hope for the best, but let us work today to ensure as bright a tomorrow as we can create.

[William769]

13. To begin with, it has not been ratified in 37 States.

That implies it has been voted on by the people or legislatures and that could not be further from the truth.

Many of those States, the Amendments have been ruled unconstitutional by Federal judges.

They are not throwing anybody a bone, especially me. What they will probably be saying is that a heterosexual does not have special rights over me making them a 1st class citizen & me a 2nd class citizen.

Once you resolve this, then we can talk about the rest of your OP.

[pnwmom]

16. I was using ratify in its common, non-legal meaning. You are correct

that it wasn't formally voted on in most states.

And I only meant it was a "bone" in the sense that the meat of the issue was already decided, when Scalia himself predicted, in his dissent, that full marriage equality would be the end result of a case they'd just decided on.

[William769]

18. Thank you for the clarification.

[pnwmom]

19. I apologize for not being clear.

This is a very important issue to everyone who cares about civil rights.

[William769]

20. Agreed.

[spanone]

14. i do not trust this supreme court, not one little bit.

[tritsofme]

15. I'm starting to think that Roberts will end up writing the marriage equality decision.

I'm not sure how much he would be able to narrow it, but now that the outcome appears inevitable, I wonder if Roberts will try to jump in and write a decision that is far less sweeping. It is typically his prerogative of the chief justice to write or assign the opinion when in the majority.

[pnwmom]

17. Yup. He'll want the credit and the control. Same with the ACA decision, whatever it is. n/t

[Reter]

21. Well we can't win them all

Better than losing them both. Conservatives won't be happy either with a split vote.