Say It Here

Okay. We’re all on a break. Let’s make this an open topic and whatever you want to talk about or say–go for it.

Comments

  1. I like Jeb Bush….
    `

  2. Oh, Dean.

    I’d provide more of an explanation, but I can’t stop giggling. You are so cute.

  3. What’s not to like…well, besides the fact he’s a moderate like his dad (and his brother?)…

  4. By this time next week we will all know how SCOTUS rules on our favorite case (and I don’t mean First American Financial v. Edwards), as well as Arizona v. US.

    My guess is that the court will wait until Thursday to release the decision on ACA, probably because the clerks of the justice who is writing the opinion has 6 more all-nighters to pull off. However the court rules, this case will be studied ad nauseum by law students for decades.

    How do you think you will react if the Court:
    A) upholds it in its entirety,
    B) strikes the mandate (and possibly some minor provisions) but leaves the rest of the law intact, or
    C) strikes the mandate and overturns the entire law on the grounds that it isn’t salvageable?

    In my opinion B is the most likely, with A being slightly more likely than C. I think they will overturn the entire law only if they find both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion unconstitutional, and Roberts in particular seemed skeptical of the latter. Politically, B would be the best result for the president, since it keeps the popular provisions intact, as well as the “exchanges” and other micromanaging measures, while striking the most unpopular part. It would also be the worst result for the industry, since it would make the insurers more vulnerable while maintaining the restrictions on health care providers. However, from a constitutional perspective, it is also the most likely. Courts are reluctant to throw out an entire law if just a part of it is unconstitutional.

  5. Randy in Richmond says:

    KPOM
    I believe ‘A’ would be the most beneficial for Romney. However, I believe as you do that ‘B’ will most likely be the direction the Court takes.

  6. I thought the decision was actually made with in days of the argument and that the time since is just writing the dissections? One theory on the ruling I’d heard is that the ACA may pass by a majority, with Roberts voting in favor so he could write the decision and insert language that would be limiting.

    I feel like I’m getting all hepped-up for some kind of reversal and it may not happen…..I wonder if there are Vegas odds on this ruling? ;)

  7. Randy in Richmond says:

    I agree with InTrade that the mandate part will be ruled unconstitutional. I also believe most of the rest will remain intact.

  8. @RL, I don’t think Roberts would cast the deciding vote. If he votes to uphold, it will be because Kennedy did, too, and it would be a 6-3 vote. Although an initial vote was taken within days, justices can change their minds during the opinion drafting process.

    You are correct that the senior justice in the majority gets to write the opinion or designate the author. My guess is that Roberts will want it, either way, though there may be several concurring opinions and there will be at least one dissent.

    It’s possible there will be several rulings. They will likely vote 9-0 that they have the ability to decide the case (that was argued on the first day). If the mandate is overturned, there could be a difference between the justices as to what provisions to overturn with it. It’s possible that some or all of the liberal justices would side with the government that the mandate and “guaranteed issue” provisions should be overturned, meaning that the majority on the remedy could be different from the majority on the mandate itself. Scalia seemed to be the most enthusiastic about throwing out the whole thing, and I’d guess so would Thomas, and just possibly Alito. I’m not sure Roberts or Kennedy would want to do something so drastic, particularly since that would brand the court as even more hyperpartisan.

    Of course, they could vote to uphold the whole thing. I think it will either be 6-3 to uphold the law, or 5-4 to overturn it. If it’s the latter, it will likely be 6-3 or 7-2 to overturn the mandate and the related insurance provisions, but keep the rest of the law intact.

  9. KPOM, that was a great run-down.

  10. I did mean dissentions earlier, not dissections. But perhaps with this court, a divisive word is more appropriate, in which autotcorrect wins.

Speak Your Mind