Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Conservative Supreme Court Saves Obamacare


vcczar
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm pleasantly shocked that the court voted 7-2 to save Obamacare. I'm most surprised that Justices Barrett and Thomas joined the majority. My best case scenario had been a 5-4 save, but I expected 4-5, and thought 3-6 seemed possible. Only Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm pleasantly shocked that the court voted 7-2 to save Obamacare. I'm most surprised that Justices Barrett and Thomas joined the majority. My best case scenario had been a 5-4 save, but I expected 4-5, and thought 3-6 seemed possible. Only Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

I think this is a hopeful sign that the court’s impartiality has been preserved for now, in spite of increasing political polarization on the left and right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

I think this is a hopeful sign that the court’s impartiality has been preserved for now, in spite of increasing political polarization on the left and right.

I'd bet that's why they did it too. The Justices know if the court gets expanded or packed they(all justices) end up losing at least some(most likely a great deal) of their power. Same goes for if they end up having terms rather than life appointments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad to see Obamacare preserved, as for all its imperfections, it’s still better than what we would have if it were repealed. I am also pleased to see ACB and Kavanaugh continue to seem more moderate than I had expected, although equally as disappointed to see Gorsuch (whom I had previously seen as more of a Roberts type) side with Alito

Edited by Rezi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rezi said:

I am glad to see Obamacare preserved, as for all its imperfections, it’s still better than what we would have if it were repealed. I am also pleased to see ACB and Kavanaugh continue to seem more moderate than I had expected, although equally as disappointed to see Gorsuch (whom I had previously seen as more of a Roberts type) side with Alito

@Dobs Glad to see we were vindicated from when everyone on the old forum thought we were loonies for saying ACB would be more moderate than everyone expected 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cal said:

@Dobs Glad to see we were vindicated from when everyone on the old forum thought we were loonies for saying ACB would be more moderate than everyone expected 😛

Yeah, I'm surprised with Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch. I expected all of them to be like Alito or Thomas. So far, they're better than these two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, I'm surprised with Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch. I expected all of them to be like Alito or Thomas. So far, they're better than these two. 

At the end of the day, the best part of Trump’s presidency was his Supreme Court picks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cal said:

@Dobs Glad to see we were vindicated from when everyone on the old forum thought we were loonies for saying ACB would be more moderate than everyone expected 😛

Indeed, let’s also delineate that this decision has nothing to do with the merits of Obamacare @vcczar. This was a ruling on standing in order to grant cert. This was a legal decision made by 8 of the finest legal professionals in the country and Sam Alito. Media loves to make SCOTUS rulings (a vast majority of which are near unanimous rulings on legalese) seem like partisan dogfights when they’re not.

That sort of lack of perspective is what causes people to think the court is far more partisan that it actually is, there even are some among us who are guilty of that thought.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dobs said:

Indeed, let’s also delineate that this decision has nothing to do with the merits of Obamacare @vcczar. This was a ruling on standing in order to grant cert. This was a legal decision made by 8 of the finest legal professionals in the country and Sam Alito. Media loves to make SCOTUS rulings (a vast majority of which are near unanimous rulings on legalese) seem like partisan dogfights when they’re not.

That sort of lack of perspective is what causes people to think the court is far more partisan that it actually is, there even are some among us who are guilty of that thought.

ACB and Clarence Thomas are now campaigners for Obamacare enrollment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Patine said:

It still nicely delays the incentive and pressure on the Biden Administration, and the Democratic Congressional Majority to fulfill their campaign promises around upgrading to Universal Healthcare, a notable and conspicuous fact I've brought up three times (more or less) on this thread, and been completely ignored.

Won't happen, so no point in talking about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

What a shame that the wealthiest nation in the world has the one of the shoddiest health coverage systems in the First World - and defeatism is the general response about any hope of improvement. That seems pretty bleak and grim of a situation to me - like a Noir film. 😞

Well, it wont happen until at least the midterms. Optimism is fine and all, but sometimes the U.S. Senate has something else to say 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's important to note that the case was decided that way because there were no injured parties. This could very well be brought up again should the law be enforced against someone not having health insurance (though proponents would likely attempt to avoid such a scenario).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Patine said:

Maybe the U.S. Senate has outlived it's usefulness. It's become more of a tool of obstruction and gridlock than productive lawmaking. McConnell, and lot of other members (of both parties) have all effectively violated and abdicated their oaths and mandates of office as lawmakers, but are still ALLOWED to continue serving, blocking up those seats, and being negative counters to what they are supposed to go to Washington, DC to actually do. The vast majority of jobs would end in termination of employment pretty quickly under those circumstances.

Yeah, I'd rather do away with it and just have the US House. 

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

It's important to note that the case was decided that way because there were no injured parties. This could very well be brought up again should the law be enforced against someone not having health insurance (though proponents would likely attempt to avoid such a scenario).

This is a very important distinction. Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by any means, and I've seen a lot of talk claiming so from fellow liberals. Obamacare has a lot of very real legal avenues to be explored in the courts STILL after all this time. Even as a proponent of expanded healthcare programs, the individual mandate was on very shaky legal grounds. I remember one professor of mine was convinced that Roberts has ruled the way he has to preserve the impartial status of the court - in his opinion, for the court to strike down such a partisan issue would amount to the court mucking around and answering political questions. I'm not sure if I completely agree with the assessment, but I do think that Roberts thinks a lot about how his rulings affect the Supreme Court as an institution and that he takes his role as Chief Justice very seriously. 

Overall, I expect pretty much every justice except for Alito to have sound legal reasonings for their decision. Sometimes I have questions for Sotomayor who can seem to twist her political biases to match the law. Thomas, though I often disagree with him, is remarkably consistent in his application of his judicial philosophy to the understanding of the law. Kavanaugh has proven to be a good justice so far. Gorsuch makes good calls. ACB I think will make great decisions on the protection of civil liberties. 

As I've tried to explain to many of my liberal friends before, in the application of law partisan identity doesn't matter as much. Judicial philosophy can differ completely from political ideology in some cases. I know some Republicans who believe that its the role of the court to always decide the case in their favor and I know Democrats that way. I know Republicans who believe in strict textualist interpretations of the constitution, even when that results in favorable rulings against police departments in an era where Republicans increasingly take a pro-police stance at all costs (not always true!). I know Democrats who question the legitimacy of gun control measures and Obamacare on constitutional grounds, even if they are the first to march for those causes. 

While there's this claim that the court is politically influenced that I've heard a lot on this forum, ultimately its not full of political hackjobs. There are many different ways to read the law and they are all valid to me as long as they are applied consistently by those who espouse them. That's why I personally find Alito to be the worst member on the Court - he's sometimes right on issues, but he's so influenced by the will of conservatives that he'll rule pro-government, anti-government, or whatever is convenient in practicing Republican values. He's not consistent in his application of the law. 

But back to the original discussion. I imagine that this would have been a slam dunk case for the court had the penalty never been lowered to 0. Provable harm and Thomas, Gorsuch, and ACB at least would have torn into the flipflopping of the majority of the court on the tax question previously. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2021 at 3:57 AM, Patine said:

Trump didn't have much of a real solid ideology, anyways, as I've often said. As I said to Anthony back on 270soft when I said Trump was not actually a Conservative, ideologically, one of the only retorts he could spit out was nominating Conservative Supreme Court Justices. I had said these names were probably provided for him by underlings, and he just took their advice without too much vetting, like he seemed to do for the majority of his Cabinet and staff nominations who were not Trump's family members or Steve Bannon.

If Trump has any ideology, it is "Donald Trump is the best! Donald Trump will be mad if he doesn't get his own way!"

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...