[WayneS]

If the justices rule in favor of the challenge, it would wipe out insurance subsidies for millions of consumers in nearly three dozen states that use the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace established through the health law.

It's working out exactly like Obama planned it.

While the supreme court should NOT be influenced by such things, and while they SHOULD rule based ONLY on whether the law is Constitutional, I think a majority of them consider the plight of "millions of consumers" in to account when take their decision.

[pepsionice]

I’m of the opinion that the President and his 2012 election staff were absolutely expecting the Supreme Court to toss Obamacare before the election and they’d use that as the one-and-only topic for the entire election. I think they were in a state of shock once Roberts reset the system. They had to continue on and pretend it works as it is.....waiting for this day when there’s a car with an engine, but no transmission.

If you were looking for maximum frustration at the state-level....this is it. Once you chill out the subsidy...people throughout your community and state will get testy real quick. New taxes to repair this? You’d have to invent a 19-percent VAT sales tax like they have in Germany to have any hope of continuing on this whole game.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

While the supreme court should NOT be influenced by such things, and while they SHOULD rule based ONLY on whether the law is Constitutional....

The case currently before the court is not challenging the Constitutionality of Obamacare, so no, they should not rule based on whether the law is Constitutional. The current case is a question of statutory construction - that is, how the law itself should be interpreted.