If the SC throws out the ACA

[Just_Vote_Dem]

and we win the Presidency and Congress, can they craft a bill immediately to keep it going early next year? My life and many others are counting on this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. They would have expand SCOTUS first, to ensure the new bill would be upheld. Nt

[drray23]

5. No. The supreme court does not work that way.

They dont get to opine on bills. They only can act on cases brought before them after it has percolated up the lower courts. Yes there is a way to expedite it but it has to start with a legal issue.
The ACA has been contested for years because of the fact it was viewed as a targeted tax .Medicare for all for example would not and there is nothing the SC would have to rule upon.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Why wait for cases to percolate? Expand SCOTUS NOW

If SCOTUS overturns the ACA, then a new bill could get overturned quite quickly by a lower court based on the prior ruling.

We need an expanded SCOTUS ASAP to defend against any rulings by the 6-3 court during the lame duck period.

It’s the right thing to do, with minimal long term political risk.

[Ms. Toad]

24. Again - that's not the way it works.

A new ACA woudld be a different bill, presenting different legal issues. The lower court can't just reverse it based on the concept of the ACA - it has to look at the actual issue raised by the bill (if any).

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. I see no risks to the ACA or women's choice by expanding SCOTUS, do you? Nt

[Ms. Toad]

26. The risk is that this is a game the Republicans can then play

when they are in power, as well.

An ever-expanding group of justices whenever a new side comes to power who doesn't like the current composition of the court is not sustainable.

So - short term, no. Long term - yes.

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. It works to our benefit both short and long term

The larger the court, the less power and influence a single justice has. I think the GOP is less likely to get both houses of Congress and the WH in the foreseeable future.

[BigDemVoter]

28. I used to not be in favor of stacking the court.

But the repigs have proven they have no integrity at all. They have ALREADY spit in our faces over this, and in my humble opinion, they'll do ANYTHING, regardless of what we do. . .

[Celerity]

11. good luck getting even the public option passed, let alone M4A, even if we have a 53-47 majority (or

even 54-46)

Same goes for doing away with the filibuster, let alone expanding SCOTUS.

Go back and look up what many of our Democratic Senators have already said on all 4.

I have listed running counts of them before.

Plus we have not even won the Senate back yet (I think we will will, but I am SO angry at Cunningham in NC, Tillis was toast and he tossed him a lifeline with his goddamn sexting rot).

[drray23]

12. we can do away with fillibuster on day 1 of new congress.

it only requires a simple majority vote if we retake the senate and Biden has said he favors it.

[Celerity]

20. there are multiple institutionalist Dem Senators who have already said they will fight it

Feinstein
Manchin
Bennet
Coons
Sinema
Tester
Jones (he will lose anyway though)

I am sure there are more

all the ones who oppose getting rid of it are centrists/moderates on many issues, far too often especially in Manchin and Sinema's cases (both voted over 50% of the time with Trump in the last full congress)

don't blame me, I voted against Feinstein and for Kevin de León both the jungle primary and then in the general (and not just for this reason, but multiple other things too)

Biden has always vigorously opposed it for almost 50 years, but, as you said, he is open to it now

he is going to have to have Schumer twist some arms massively

[JCMach1]

21. Then we bring PR and DC statehood first... No games

End the BS.

I just barely survived Covid. I am on ACA this is literally life and death and I am not even a drop in that bucket.

[Celerity]

23. first we have to actually win back the Senate. Cunningham really fucked his race against the oh so

weak Tillis. I had that as a sure flip, now we will be very lucky to pull it out.




Cal Cunningham's personal scandal deepens, roils NC Senate race

https://abc11.com/cal-cunningham-wife-texts-affair/6826573/

snip

On Wednesday, a spokesperson with the Army Reserve Strategic Communications office confirmed that Cunningham in under investigation.

The statement said: "The Army Reserve is investigating the matters involving Lt. Col. James Cunningham. As such, we are unable to provide further details at this time."

Cal Cunningham asked repeatedly about more possible affair allegations, doesn’t fully answer

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/10/09/cal-cunningham-asked-repeatedly-about-more-possible-affair-allegations-doesnt-fully-answer/

[JCMach1]

31. I have faith...

[Statistical]

2. I guess it depends on by how much we win.

The bill that can be signed into law is the one that the 50th least progressive senator will agree to.

Well 50 if we abolish the filibuster otherwise the 60th least progressive senator.

[In It to Win It]

3. It really depends on WHY they throw it out

Last edited Fri Oct 9, 2020, 02:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Under the broad scenario that SCOTUS throws out the entire law, because one part of it is unconstitutional, Congress can pass a new law without that certain part.

SCOTUS could strike down a certain part of the law and leave the remaining parts intact.

[Midnightwalk]

15. I think this is the answer

Isn’t the issue that the republican congress reduced the penalty for not having insurance to zero dollars in 2017.

The supreme court previously upheld the aca preconditions mandate because the penalty was essentially a tax.

The right decision should be to strike down the reduction of the penalty. Otherwise you could get any law struck down by enacting a minor unconstitutional change.

If they do strike down aca, the right thing to do is immediately pass something to fix that issue. Then follow that with enhancements.

Lots of considerations though. What kind of majority do we have? What are we doing about the filibuster? If we don’t take care of that we only get a couple of bills every term (2 years) under reconciliation so maybe we need to go for more.

Corrections welcome.

[In It to Win It]

18. If I recall correctly..

the argument was something like... without the individual mandate the entire law becomes unconstitutional and must be struck down, and what Congress really meant to do when it eliminated the individual mandate was to get rid of the entire law so therefore it must be struck down.

Technically, the 2017 tax bill isn't the issue in before the court. Therefore, the court can't strike down any part of the 2017 tax bill, which includes getting bringing the individual mandate penalty down to $0, because that bill is not the issue that the court has to resolve.

Also, I'm thinking that in the event that Biden wins and Dems control congress, what they could do is make that argument irrelevant. The argument being that "without the mandate the law becomes unconstitutional" becomes irrelevant if the new congress and new president enacts a bill that brings back the individual mandate. That does away with the entire basis of the argument.

[dalton99a]

4. The Trump Court must not be allowed to murder millions of Americans.

Extraordinary circumstances demand an extraordinary and IMMEDIATE response.

[List left]

6. GOTV We must win by a landslide

The number one cause of unwanted presidencies, not voting

Get everyone you can to vote and vote early a possible.

[PTWB]

7. It depends on how the law was constructed.

If they simply lowered the Medicare eligibility age to 0 it would not be unconstitutional.

[roamer65]

13. Brilliant idea.

[beastie boy]

8. I would go even further.

Introduce and pass a new bill that doesn't have the provisions SCOTUS would object to in their decision, but has provisions for a single payer system. In fact, I would threaten the Republicans as soon as possible about this being the certain outcome of their attempt to overturn ACA via the Supreme Court.

[LizBeth]

17. Medicare for all. That would be easy to implement.

[beastie boy]

19. Medicare for all wouldn't. It has too much of a stigma alrfeady attached to it.

But a single payer system with more moderate provisions should not be as difficult to push through.

[Wounded Bear]

22. One thing to do is pass the expanded MedicAid part of it again...

With expanded benefits and subsidies. Even red states have been admitting the obvious and signing on.

[beastie boy]

33. That would be a huge first step. Then, expand on it and dare the GOP to oppose the expansions.

[Renew Deal]

10. Throwing out the ACA would be bad except it opens the door for Democrats to pass almost anything.

[roamer65]

14. Yes, single payor universal Medicare.

[Boogiemack]

30. And i believe that Biden would do it and craft a way for rich GOP to opt out.

Any one making over 1 million a year could be deemed to not meet a threshold for universal Medicare for all if they want to. Personally, I think they should pay for their medical care anyway. They are the one who have the most elective optional expensive medical surgeries and procedures.

Do away with the ACA and Medicare for all rushes in.

[LizBeth]

16. +1

[madinmaryland]

29. The case is being argued in the SC on November 10th....

There will be no decision made at that time. Generally after oral arguments the decision will be released approximately three months later. With that being the case, hopefully my mid February the WH and all of congress will be Democratic and will respond with speed to alleviate whatever the SC decides.

[Jspur]

32. So we won't know until February which way this

ruling is going to go. Well I guess I have no point of stressing out this month about the decision. I will definitely stress out in February.

[madinmaryland]

34. It will be interesting to see how the oral arguments go...

We should get some idea at that point which way the court may be leaning.