Supreme Court Justices Dissect Health Care Law
Would it be possible to let some of President Obama's infamous 2010 health care reform legislation -- or "Obamacare," if you speak Republican -- stand while scrapping other parts and still have a functional law at the end of the process? That was one big question Supreme Court justices grappled with on Wednesday.
Would it be possible to let some of President Obama’s infamous 2010 health care reform legislation — or “Obamacare,” if you speak Republican — stand while scrapping other parts and still have a functional law at the end of the process? That was one big question Supreme Court justices grappled with on Wednesday.
WAIT, BEFORE YOU GO…The New York Times:
Justice Antonin Scalia said the whole law would have to go.
“My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of this statute,” he said, “the statute’s gone.”
Other justices considered a variety of possible approaches. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the court’s task, should the key provision fall, a choice between “a wrecking operation” and “a salvage job.”
The issue before the justices on Wednesday took on practical urgency after some of the questioning on Tuesday suggested that the law’s core provision, often called the individual mandate, may be in peril. It requires most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
Courts & Law
If you want to deepen your understanding of the differences between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” as competing theories of constitutional law and interpretation, there’s no better place to begin than with the 2006 debate between the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
A new Second Amendment appeal could radically expand the scope of District of Columbia v. Heller, handicapping Congress for years to come.
The implications of Justice Thomas’ tenure on the nation’s top court extend far beyond his own career and legacy.
And with Neil Gorsuch and now Brett Kavanaugh in tow, the president is well on his way achieving his objective.
The confirmation of President Trump's nominee would mark the culmination of a right-wing legal counterrevolution that has been decades in the making.
The president has chosen a candidate who poses a great threat to progressive values and causes—and one who might shield him from Mueller.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.