•   
  •   
  •   

Opinion What Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death means for the Supreme Court’s Obamacare case

12:35  19 september  2020
12:35  19 september  2020 Source:   vox.com

McConnell vows quick vote on next justice; Biden says wait

  McConnell vows quick vote on next justice; Biden says wait WASHINGTON (AP) — The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just six weeks before the election cast an immediate spotlight on the crucial high court vacancy, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly vowing to bring to a vote whoever President Donald Trump nominates. Democratic nominee Joe Biden vigorously disagreed, declaring that "voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice to consider.” require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); McConnell, who sets the calendar in the U.S.

The Affordable Care Act is coming before the Supreme Court in November — and this time, with no Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg there to protect the law.

a group of people standing in front of a building: Mourners gather at the Supreme Court after news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. Her passing has serious implications for the upcoming case on Obamacare. © Alex Edelman/AFP via Getty Images Mourners gather at the Supreme Court after news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. Her passing has serious implications for the upcoming case on Obamacare.

Ginsburg, who was appointed to the Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and served until her death on Friday, voted to uphold the law in 2012. Along with the three other liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts, she saved Obamacare then from a legal challenge that would have invalidated the law entirely.

Hundreds mourn Ruth Bader Ginsburg in vigil outside Supreme Court

  Hundreds mourn Ruth Bader Ginsburg in vigil outside Supreme Court "It is amazing to see how many people are feeling this loss tonight and saying goodbye," said Jennifer Berger.Spontaneously, hundreds of people of all ages and races gathered on the steps of the historic Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. late Friday night. Wearing face-masks to protect them from the coronavirus, many wept silently about the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

But now another challenge, a sequel of sorts to that 2012 case, will be heard by a Court without Ginsburg on it. A consortium of Republican-led states have sued again to overturn the ACA completely. In 2012, Roberts sided with the liberal justices including Ginsburg and ruled that the law’s individual mandate penalty could stand because it was a legitimate use of Congress’s taxing power. Now, because a GOP-controlled Congress repealed the penalty in their 2017 tax law, the Republican states argue Roberts’s rationale from 2012 no longer applies and the ACA must fall.

It was assumed in Washington, up until Friday, that Obamacare would probably be safe because the same five votes that preserved it in 2012 were still on the bench. But now, with Ginsburg’s death, that is no longer true. There is a lot of uncertainty about what happens next, but the bottom line is this: The ACA is much more at risk of being overturned today than it was the day before.

Is 8 enough? Court vacancy could roil possible election case

  Is 8 enough? Court vacancy could roil possible election case WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death has left the Supreme Court shorthanded during a polarizing presidential campaign in which President Donald Trump has already suggested he may not accept the outcome and the court could be called on to step in and decide the fate of the nation. It's the second time in four years that a justice has died during an election year, though that eight-justice court was not asked to referee any election disputes in 2016. Today, both sides have armies of lawyers ready to take the outcome to court.

“It’s a much more significant possibility than it was,” Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who worked in the Obama administration, told me. “I’m much more worried about the ACA than I was two hours ago.”

The consequences of the Court overturning Obamacare would be severe: The Medicaid expansion and the insurance marketplaces that cover 25 million people would be nullified, the protections for people with preexisting conditions would be voided. Overnight, the US health care system would be thrown into chaos.

However, that worst-case scenario is not a given even after Ginsburg’s passing. There are matters of court procedure and the substance of the case that could still save the ACA.

First, the procedure: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is promising to hold a vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, but he hasn’t set a timeline for that vote. Bagley told me that convention dictates justices should not rule on cases they did not hear the oral arguments for. The Senate holding its hearings and voting on a Court nominee before November 10, the scheduled date for the ACA arguments, seems unlikely if not impossible.

Fact check: Viral posts falsely claim Ruth Bader Ginsburg had already died

  Fact check: Viral posts falsely claim Ruth Bader Ginsburg had already died Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Sept. 18, but some viral posts falsely claim she died up to 2 years ago.Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflects on being 'notorious' in first appearance since cancer treatment

If a new justice won’t be confirmed before oral arguments, the current Court has two choices. One, they could choose to postpone oral arguments. But that would require five votes, and such a consensus could be difficult to come by on a closely divided Court, with nobody certain how the incoming justice will rule.

The other option is to hear the case as scheduled and have eight justices decide the outcome. If there was a 4-4 tie, the decision of the lower courts would hold. In this case, that means a federal district court judge would be asked to decide what other parts of the law must also fall if the mandate is overturned. Those could include the law’s rules banning insurers from denying people coverage or charging them higher premiums because of their medical history.

So the litigation would, in a certain sense, start over, and the same case would likely end up back before the Supreme Court in another year or two.

However, some of the legal experts I spoke with believe the lawsuit will still be heard in November and Obamacare ultimately upheld even without Ginsburg on the bench.

Supreme Court is shorthanded but could play key role in election

  Supreme Court is shorthanded but could play key role in election The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg adds a new layer of intrigue to a pandemic-infused election that's been challenged from Alabama to Wisconsin.On SCOTUS ‘all Democrats can do is plan retaliation’ expert says

Why? As Bagley put it: “This lawsuit is profoundly dumb, and that matters a lot.”

That is not a partisan position either. Jonathan Adler, a libertarian law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told me in 2018 he thought the Republican states’ argument was “absurd.”

The case turns on the complicated legal concept of “severability”: If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court, can the rest of it stand without it? Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional, then the rest of the law is too.

Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress’s intent — and that’s where the conservative case falls apart.

It is actually quite simple, legal scholars say: Congress passed a law, the tax legislation, repealing the individual mandate and leaving the insurance protections in place. So, clearly, Congress intended in the tax bill to eliminate the mandate penalty while keeping the ACA’s insurance reforms. That is exactly what the tax law they just passed does.

Adler told me Friday night that he thought there were still five or six votes on the Supreme Court who would rule that even if the mandate is now unconstitutional, the rest of the law is severable from it and should therefore be upheld. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is believed to be sympathetic to that argument, based on some recent decisions, though that remains to be seen.

Nevertheless, Adler said, a new vacancy on the Supreme Court “shouldn’t affect the outcome” of the ACA case.

That could very well end up being true. Legal experts have long been dubious about the merits of the lawsuit. But right now, in the hours after the world learned Ginsburg had died, the future looks a little less certain.

Help keep Vox free for all

Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.

Trump embraces political battle with pick of Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative favorite, for Supreme Court .
Trump's nomination of Barrett will be a major campaign issue, coming just three days before his first debate with Democratic challenger Joe Biden. “This nomination is an attack on our very democracy," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Republicans and conservative allies applauded Barrett as a strict constructionist who will interpret the Constitution and not make law from the bench. "Judge Barrett has impressed the brightest judicial and legal minds with her profound understanding of the law," tweeted Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 1
This is interesting!