Obamacare Decision: an implicit vote for the next president?

[Brian Howell]

Well, not for a particular candidate specifically, but rather a vote to keep all of those Red Staters who are benefiting from it clearly in the GOP fold. 

Thirty-four states rely on the federal marketplace. Kentucky saw its uninsured rate drop from 20.4% to 9.8% and Arkansas dropped from 22.5% to 11.4%, according to Gallup. Other red states that embraced the ACA have seen significant declines as well. So what could have happened electorally, if there were suddenly millions of newly (re-)uninsured Red State voters? Could that consideration have swayed Roberts' or Kennedy's votes?

 

[Scott Hotes]

It's certainly possible to disagree politically with a particular bill or entitlement, and well, once you're already paying for

it, take the benefit.  Are you suggesting that Roberts and/or Kennedy had concerned about the political fall-out of

a large number of people losing an entitlement and revolting (I *wish* we had an electorate with that kind of passion)

and so, as Scalia has suggested, reinterpreted the language of the bill to make it constitutional?  See [WSJ]:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/scotuscare-1435254820

I suppose anything is possible.  More likely (IMO, based on theirs and other comments, interesting to hear Larry

weigh in...) they decided that based on the relative complexity of the legislation that a more broad interpretation of

some of the concerning language, in particular the meaning of "established by the State" was reasonable.  My

immediate response to Scalia's comments and "SCOTUScare" was also to get my back up, legislating from the

bench!! and all that, but, well, Robert's comments I found also to be compelling.

In any case, it reminds me of the (only vaguely related) argument once made on the @noend list that was the 

straw that made me finally drop it.  There was a discussion (one of many!) about Ayn Rand, and someone called

out her hypocrisy of, on the one hand decrying the "nanny state", Social Security and Medicare, but when the time

came, took advantage of these benefits.  I called "ad hominem", and when a critical number of people went to 

the defense of that and pointing out that, well, she didn't have any children, I knew what I had to do... :)

In any case, since we're already there... I did listen to Obama's remarks, and he did make a good case (if 

nothing else, he can make a good case) that the ACA has already effectively reduced health care costs, and

will continue to do so.  I hope he's right, and that when we come out of this economic slump, cost increases won't

return to pre-great recession rates...

Scott

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, not for a particular candidate specifically, but rather a vote to keep all of those Red Staters who are benefiting from it clearly in the GOP fold. 

Thirty-four states rely on the federal marketplace. Kentucky saw its uninsured rate drop from 20.4% to 9.8% and Arkansas dropped from 22.5% to 11.4%, according to Gallup. Other red states that embraced the ACA have seen significant declines as well. So what could have happened electorally, if there were suddenly millions of newly (re-)uninsured Red State voters? Could that consideration have swayed Roberts' or Kennedy's votes?

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/7b373198-2eb9-4de9-9be6-c66c86b22bc0%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Larry Rosenthal]

Lotta SCOTUS lit to wade through!
Nowhere near done with my review of King v. Burwell, among the others released this week.
I would caution: the case was about the effective meaning of a legally ambiguous clause in the ACA.
It was not a constitutional case. And it was not about the policy wisdom of the ACA.
One thing I've savored ---> the Chief Justice's utilization of Justice Scalia's own language in his National Federation v. Sebelius dissent to obliterate the minority's view in King v. Burwell.
LR

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAC7%2BDADJjqCZWK3dOO%2BsQPWTmGwAL-Yju3mDuG25T520BX8wtg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
Larry A. Rosenthal, Program Director
Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement
Goldman School of Public Policy
UC Berkeley MC7320
Berkeley  CA  94720-7320
ph 1-510-642-2062
http://gspp.berkeley.edu/centers/ccde

[Brian Howell]

Sort of. I'm simply speculating, along with many others, that we're well into a presidential election cycle, and that Roberts and Kennedy considered that killing the ACA risked alienating red-state voters who are now benefiting from the ACA—and there are many, millions in fact. And that that would, in turn, lead those voters to turn on Republican candidates in 2016—whether by voting Democratic, or more likely, by simply staying home, thus leading to the election of both a Democratic president and congress.

[Larry Rosenthal]

Scalia, Thomas, Alito - they aren't very savvy Republicans, then. Mutineers!

The GOP may win the White House in '16 because of today's gay marriage decision. Does that make Kennedy the only strategically minded Republican appointee?

The absurdities flowing from such suggestions only mount.

There is valid constitutional doctrine regarding subsequent social reliance upon prior decisions - none concerning impacts on future elections.

Feel free to deconstruct justices' political inclinations in decisions like Bush v. Gore, Shelby County v. Holder, and redistricting cases. Even US v. Nixon if you like. Directing such thinking towards decisions on election law and related matters, while still impugning a devoutly countermajoritarian institution, would be less of an overreach, perhaps.

To my mind there are only two meaningfully political choices in the life of a SCOTUS justice, customarily: a) the manner of testifying during confirmation hearings and b) the timing of one's resignation from office.

Gaming one's vote on a pending case to boost the election outcomes one favors? The charge is a scurrilous insult to the judiciary. On that point all justices would unanimously concur.

LR