SCOTUS Gets Political and Punts ACA Case in 2020 Gift to GOP

[Milchshake]

Ongoing In: In case you havent realized, SCOTUS has been politicized since forever. Thus SCOTUS appointments have consequences.

With election-year implications, Supreme Court punts on ACA case

For Republicans, this was probably the ideal political outcome. If the high court heard the appeal and ruled in the ACA’s favor before voters went to the polls, it would’ve handed Donald Trump and his allies an embarrassing election-year defeat. If the high court heard the case and tore down the nation’s health care system, it would’ve been even worse for Trump, as tens of millions of families came to terms with the loss of coverage, protections, and related benefits thanks to a lawsuit the White House championed.

A good piece by Dahlia Lithwick and Barry Friedman about how Republican justices are deliberately and unnecessarily letting cases drag out to benefit Republican politicians:
The Courts Can Move Quickly. They’re Slow-Walking Trump Cases on Purpose.

What’s stunning is the degree to which the courts are complicit in all this. The courts have aided and abetted the Trump legal team and Mitch McConnell by refusing to behave as if time is a factor in any of these proceedings. That’s evident in the decision to docket a pair of financial records cases no earlier than March and the meandering pace of the gamesmanship around a case seeking to end the Affordable Care Act through judicial fiat. But the real coup de grâce was the failure of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts to resolve congressional subpoenas around the impeachment process with alacrity when it was altogether plain what was needed. Had the courts signaled a willingness to act at a pace befitting the needs of the moment, Schiff might have made a different choice. Sometimes the appearance of studied deliberation serves nihilism and chaos, even as it pretends at neutrality and institutionalism.


It didn’t have to be this way. Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia insisted that the Watergate tapes case play out so quickly that the White House was caught off guard and unable to formulate a workaround in time. The Supreme Court heard the Nixon tapes case on July 8, 1974, after the term had ended. It issued its unanimous ruling a few weeks later. In 1942, during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt wanted to execute some German saboteurs who came to Long Island by submarine—and he wanted to do so quickly. The eight defendants were tried by military tribunal lickety-split. When the constitutionality of this use of military tribunals was challenged—some of the alleged saboteurs were American citizens—the Supreme Court interrupted its carefully guarded summer recess, heard extra-long arguments on July 29 and 30 of 1942, and issued its judgment, giving its unanimous OK on the July 31. (So anxious were the justices to rule quickly that the actual opinion justifying the ruling did not come out until the end of October, long after the men had been executed in the electric chair.) Justices have heard emergency petitions in far-flung places, including a 1973 hearing over a petition to stop the military from bombing Cambodia that took place in a courthouse near Justice William O. Douglas’ home in the mountains of Washington state. When William Barr’s Justice Department has asked that the high court rush cases onto its docket, sometimes even before intermediate courts have ruled, the Supreme Court has accommodated. When stays of execution are requested in death penalty cases, they seem to fly through the courts on their way to being denied.

It’s a classic example of Republican justices trying to give as much of an appearance of nonpartisanship to partisan actions. They’re capable of moving quickly when they want to; they’re not acting quickly on things related to impeachment and investigations of Trump because they don’t want to, because running out the clock accomplishes the same ends as issuing explicitly pro-Trump opinions with much less exposure.

[Ripster42]

It could have been as easily argued that they were being political if they had agreed to fast-track the ACA case. There is literally nothing besides the election that puts time pressure on the case.

[Z-Man]

The Republican requested the hearings be delayed. (R)oberts delivered.

[Halicia]

It could have been as easily argued that they were being political if they had agreed to fast-track the ACA case. There is literally nothing besides the election that puts time pressure on the case.

I'm kinda at a loss to how it benefits the GOP to keep healthcare in play after having so many on record breaking their promises in regards to healthcare, while making absolutely no effort to implement anything of their own.

Trump literally ran with the promise that he had a healthcare plan, but its been three years of radio silence except for "!@#$ Obama".

This is literally a life and death matter, and not the only one, and it should be easy for voters to understand that they were sold a pack of lies.

The problem though, is that just reinforces the problem of "I'm not voting for this guy, I'm voting against them, and crossing my fingers that their opponent isn't a total scumbag"

[Ripster42]

I'm kinda at a loss to how it benefits the GOP to keep healthcare in play after having so many on record breaking their promises in regards to healthcare, while making absolutely no effort to implement anything of their own.

Trump literally ran with the promise that he had a healthcare plan, but its been three years of radio silence except for "!@#$ Obama".

This is literally a life and death matter, and not the only one, and it should be easy for voters to understand that they were sold a pack of lies.

The problem though, is that just reinforces the problem of "I'm not voting for this guy, I'm voting against them, and crossing my fingers that their opponent isn't a total scumbag"

It benefits the GOP to delay the ruling because they like talking about getting rid of obamacare, but succeeding would mean they'd be taking away health care from millions of their constituents and don't want to face the reprisals.

[Z-Man]

I'm kinda at a loss to how it benefits the GOP to keep healthcare in play after having so many on record breaking their promises in regards to healthcare, while making absolutely no effort to implement anything of their own.

Jan 20: President Warren is sworn in.
Jan 21: The Supreme Court declares the ACA unconstitutional.
Jan 22: Fox News: "Democrat Death Panels Stole Your Insurance!!!!"

Keeping it in play until after the election lets them claim credit for stopping it and avoid the blame for stopping it (and blame the evil Democrats for stopping it and avoiding blame for Trump stopping it). Win/win, win/win.

If Trump wins, the case is withdrawn and the Republicans can spend another four years shutting down the ACA "any day now", claiming credit for trying to stop it and blaming the evil Democrats for keeping it running.

[Zan15]

its almost like Medicare does not exist.

People hate ACA "Obamacare" but its fucking Medicare 1.1 passed by a democratic black president.....

Only real difference is its very easy to opt out of ACA and you can only opt out of Medicare benefits but you still have to pay the taxes. Oh and you don't have to wait 67 years to use it.

[bladeXcrasher]

Jan 20: President Warren is sworn in.
Jan 21: The Supreme Court declares the ACA unconstitutional.
Jan 22: Fox News: "Democrat Death Panels Stole Your Insurance!!!!"

Keeping it in play until after the election lets them claim credit for stopping it and avoid the blame for stopping it (and blame the evil Democrats for stopping it and avoiding blame for Trump stopping it). Win/win, win/win.

If Trump wins, the case is withdrawn and the Republicans can spend another four years shutting down the ACA "any day now", claiming credit for trying to stop it and blaming the evil Democrats for keeping it running.

Much like the bank bailouts.

[Zan15]

Much like the bank bailouts.

Problem with them is the democrats never push back and remind everyone the bailouts saved millions of jobs and has earned over 100 billion in profits and climbing every quarter.

[bladeXcrasher]

Problem with them is the democrats never push back and remind everyone the bailouts saved millions of jobs and has earned over 100 billion in profits and climbing every quarter.

Or that the bailouts was Republican legislators bill and only passed because the House Minority Leader begged her to get Democratic support and because she realized it was needed got 120 Democrats to vote yes so the 90 Republican Tea Party members could have their no vote and blame it all on Democrats. Yes, we need to remind people of that repeatedly about why Republicans can't be trusted ever.

[GreenJesus]

Much like the bank bailouts.

Haven't the bank bailouts been paid back? I don't think they were free money.

[bladeXcrasher]

Haven't the bank bailouts been paid back? I don't think they were free money.

And then some, see previous post yo my initial point.

[WintersLegion]

I'm kinda at a loss to how it benefits the GOP to keep healthcare in play after having so many on record breaking their promises in regards to healthcare, while making absolutely no effort to implement anything of their own.

Trump literally ran with the promise that he had a healthcare plan, but its been three years of radio silence except for "!@#$ Obama".

This is literally a life and death matter, and not the only one, and it should be easy for voters to understand that they were sold a pack of lies.

The problem though, is that just reinforces the problem of "I'm not voting for this guy, I'm voting against them, and crossing my fingers that their opponent isn't a total scumbag"

Trump has a good excuse for why he hasn't brought out his healthcare plan it's "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

[ati87]

It benefits the GOP to delay the ruling because they like talking about getting rid of obamacare, but succeeding would mean they'd be taking away health care from millions of their constituents and don't want to face the reprisals.

You could also turn it around.
''Republicans are trying to take away your healthcare'' attack adds.
These kind of adds are borderline fear-mongering based on truth so they are rather effective.

GOP would rather lose this case then to win but having a pending trial does not really help them I think.

[Mormolyce]

Yes the Supreme Court has been extremely partisan for a long time, Republicans explicitly nominate partisan candidates to ensure that it is so.

The judiciary is extremely dated and badly in need of reform, really. Lifetime positions, elected judges... honestly.

Again, Constitutional reform is the only remedy.

[Zan15]

Yes the Supreme Court has been extremely partisan for a long time, Republicans explicitly nominate partisan candidates to ensure that it is so.

The judiciary is extremely dated and badly in need of reform, really. Lifetime positions, elected judges... honestly.

Again, Constitutional reform is the only remedy.

Bah democrats unfortunately if they lose in 2020 will have to hope for a full sweep in 2024.

if they end up with all 3 at any point they will just appoint several new liberal judges and rebalance the court. very easy to expand the court and the number of judges.

[Fugus]

Bah democrats unfortunately if they lose in 2020 will have to hope for a full sweep in 2024.

if they end up with all 3 at any point they will just appoint several new liberal judges and rebalance the court. very easy to expand the court and the number of judges.

Liberal Justices? Not a chance, they will elect Centrists or Moderate Justices. They see Liberals and Progressives the same way Republicans saw the Tea Party and Racists.

They are people without options and all they want to do is throw them some scraps at best. The only way we get Liberal Justices is if Sanders wins and you have the Democrats fighting to avoid that as well.

The Democrats honestly feel like they exist to be an illusion of choice and their main function is to act as a check on the fringe right and keep the ship afloat but not to actually do the changes needed.

[Mormolyce]

Liberal Justices? Not a chance, they will elect Centrists or Moderate Justices. They see Liberals and Progressives the same way Republicans saw the Tea Party and Racists.

I mean it's crazy really, when the Republicans are in a strong position the Democrats argue "now is not the time for radical left wing policies! We'd better suck up to the right in order to take office!", and then when the Republicans are in a weak position it's "oh, this is a historical opportunity, we can't afford to mess this up or we might get more of these horrible unpopular Republicans! We'd better not take on any radical left wing policies, and suck up to the right in order to take office!".

And then they wind up being policy-wise indistinguishable from the right (with slightly less racism?) and wonder why nobody wants to vote for them. The lesson they learn from this lack of interest is that they need to stand for even less next time.