Slate: Sotomayor May Have Saved Obamacare

[Triana]

In a dispatch on King v. Burwell, the closely watched Obamacare challenge, NPR’s Nina Totenberg observed that the plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Carvin, argued before the Supreme Court with “red-faced passion.” Indeed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor hadn’t even finished the preamble to her first question when Carvin interrupted her to finish an earlier thought. He then caught himself and apologized, at which point Sotomayor tempered him: “Take a breath.”

Carvin needed that moment, because Sotomayor was about to ask a bombshell question about federalism, a subject that later dominated a key portion of the hearing. In setting it up, she said she was “concerned” by Carvin’s reading of the Affordable Care Act—in essence, that Congress wrote it so that only states with their own insurance exchanges receive federal subsidies. The problem with that reading, Sotomayor noted, is that lawmakers gave states a “choice”: set up exchanges of your own, or let the federal government do it for you via healthcare.gov.

That choice is not at issue in King. The dual system of federal and state exchanges is a feature of the law. And to Sotomayor, this choice cannot be squared with Carvin’s interpretation that tax subsidies are available only to people participating in state-run exchanges. That’s a constitutional problem. “If we read it the way you’re saying,” she said, “then we’re going to read the statute as intruding on the federal-state relationship, because then the states are going to be coerced into establishing their own exchanges.”

That’s the bombshell. Because if Carvin is correct and a state chooses not to set up its own exchange—and thus loses federal subsidies—Sotomayor said, “we’re going to have the death spiral that this system was created to avoid.” And she went on to list the parade of horribles that would follow from this so-called choice, including destabilized insurance markets and skyrocketing premiums. “Tell me how that is not coercive in an unconstitutional way?” Sotomayor asked.

THE REST OF THE STORY:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/03/sotomayor_saved_obamacare_she_may_have_convinced_kennedy_and_roberts_in.html

[PoliticAverse]

1. This is interesting because Sotomayor had no problem with states losing all their Medicaid

funding if they opted out of the Medicaid expansion part of the ACA.

[elleng]

3. 'had no problem?'

[Fred Sanders]

4. You are misinterpreting the legal basis for that decision. Simply put, opt out of the national program, and you can not get the money.

[PoliticAverse]

9. The point was that the majority (7-2) decided that it was coercive to force the states

to lose all their (already existing) Medicaid funding if they didn't participate in the expansion
and Sotomayer disagreed, but here it appears she might think it is coercive to require states
to set up their own exchanges.

[Fred Sanders]

12. Sotomayor is turning the same principle on the plaintiffs....sweet. No wonder health

care stocks soared after the hearing.

7 Justices agreed with the coercion argument before, how do they get out of applying the same principal here?

[sobenji]

10. And that was the correct opinion

[geek tragedy]

19. she is applying previous precedent. moreover, federal funding is one thing, destroying

the entire individual insurance market via regulation is quite another

[rhett o rick]

2. K&R. Thanks for posting. nm

[spanone]

5. k&r...

[Kath1]

6. Love her!

Thank you, President Obama, for nominating this woman!

[freshwest]

20. And why we need a Democratic President in 2016...

[Kath1]

21. Absolutely!

Let's not forget that!

[Hulk]

7. We're damned lucky to have this woman in the Supreme Court

...along with Kagan and Bader Ginsburg.

We are cursed to have such hacks as thomas, alito and scalia - and maybe even roberts (who at least seems to have some sort of conscience at times).

Is this really the way the Supreme Court is supposed to act?

[Iliyah]

8. But but the GOPers have a cure, errrrrrrr, a solution.

That's what the asshole 5 justices in their uncaring minds think.

[Andy823]

11. K&R nt

[pangaia]

13. Stunning that the three most intelligent, most human

most brilliant and most perceptive judges on the SC are,if I may so so....ah, hem..., of the female persuasion,

And Justice Sotomayor's autobiography is absolutely stunning.

[Hekate]

17. +1

[DonCoquixote]

14. I was sad, as a Puerto Rican and American

when many people seemed to give Sotomayor short shrift. "She is not liberal enough" was the only cry they could udder, despite the fact she had fought billionaires ever since the days of the Baseball strike.

Well, she, and yes Kagan, who many feared woudl turn her back on LGBT marriage, did NOT.

We have one of the few warriors on this court, and we will need her in years to come.

The fact she happens to be the foirst exmaple of a Puerto Rican promoted to a position of power just adds sugar to the coffee.

[Wella]

15. The results of the argument should not prevent the argument from being assessed on its own merits

The argument is actually correct, the product of the tortured process of writing a bill to avoid being seen for exactly what it was.

[tavernier]

16. Bless her heart and intelligent mind.

And just thanks.

[Hekate]

18. KnRnTY Justice Sotomayor

[Purveyor]

22. kick. Thanks for posting. +1 eom