Replies

I don’t buy the
“Roberts is compromised”
scare

Roberts ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 because
- he wanted restraint on the Commerce clause, and
- he didn’t want to intrude on the separation of powers. Roberts defended his position by stating (in essence) that “elections have consequences”

If you recall, Roberts struck down the Medicaid provisions in Obamacare. This protects the states against Federal funding threats. IOW - there is a conservative basis for all of Roberts 2012 opinions.

The present case is NOT argued on Constitutional grounds. It is being argued that the letter of the law is not being followed.

I strongly believe that Roberts will shoot down the law on the basis that “words have consequences”

= = =

I also feel pretty good about Kennedy’s prospects of killing the law.

He felt the strongest that the individual mandate was unconstitutional in 2012 when he sided with the conservatives. It was Kennedy who lobbied the strongest to get Roberts to side with the conservatives and himself.

Kennedy doesn’t like this law at all.

"Roberts ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 because - he wanted restraint on the Commerce clause, and - he didn’t want to intrude on the separation of powers. Roberts defended his position by stating (in essence) that “elections have consequences”

I want to believe that your analysis has some merit. The fly in the ointment however is the "elections have consequences" thing. Our side lost in 2012 and lost by winning in 2014.

I strongly believe that Roberts will shoot down the law on the basis that “words have consequences.” = = = I also feel pretty good about Kennedy’s prospects of killing the law.

Bravo. I fully agree with you. Roberts felt that completely overturning the ACA was going too far at that time. But he did reverse Obama on the Medicaid blackmail provision in the law which encouraged 33 states to refuse to set up their own state exchange.

I don't understand the idiot pundits who think that Kennedy might now vote with the liberals to save ACA after the dissent he wrote in vehement opposition to the ACA two years ago. Now the five conservatives on the court can prick a hole in the ACA that will force Obama to work with Congress to rewrite a voluntary health law on a bipartisan basis--something that should have been done in the first place.