On pins and needs, here. No predictions or “tea leaves” from me… I have no idea what they’re going to decide, and hate to speculate – we’ll hear soon enough.
The Scotusblog website will the Obamacare ruling, during its Live Blog of the announcements. They expect the Obamacare decision to come up at about 10:15 am.
Keep in mind, Mitt Romney promised that if the Supreme Court upholds the law, he will work to repeal and replace it when he gets into office.
“We’ll all be waiting to see how the court will decide. One thing we already know… it’s bad policy that’s got to go,” Romney said. “And so if the court upholds it, if they say, ‘Look, it passes the Constitution,’ it still is bad policy, and that’ll mean if I’m elected, I’m going to repeal it and replace it. If on the other hand the court strikes it down, they’ll be doing some of my work for me.”
John Boehner said yesterday, “if the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what’s left of it.”
Meanwhile, some top GOP aides told Politico that Republicans will not seek to preserve even the law’s most popular provisions.
That includes a rule allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health care plans until they turn 26, as well as one forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
The mandate survives “as a tax.” That should help the middle class dig out of the recession. (flashback 2009: Obama says individual mandate isn’t a tax)
This doesn’t mean we’re stuck with Obamacare forever — it means that November 6th just got much more important, and I didn’t think that was possible.
See the above quote from Boehner and Romney and keep heart.
Via Freedoms Lighthouse: GOP Rep Schweikert: “Supreme Court just woke up a sleeping giant….election just rolled back to 2010 because it was driven by Obamacare”
via @SCOTUSblog Kennedy says: “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”
@MTavistockThe Left will have a new monolith to loot, pillage, and game…
Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy raised the prospect that Roberts initially voted to strike the entire law down but relented under political pressure:
Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”). Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.