04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

The ObamaCare Argument – The Third and Final Day

The conservative justices were also concerned that striking the mandate but leaving other parts of the law in place would bankrupt the insurance market.  Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, who was arguing the severability issue instead of Donald Verrilli, disputed that contention.  That was too much even for Justice Sotomayor (who is clearly going to vote to uphold the law), since that claim ignored “the congressional findings and all of the evidence Congress had before it that community ratings and guaranteed issuance would be a death spiral…without minimum coverage.”

Justice Scalia scolded the Deputy SG at the idea that the Court should go through every part of the 2,700 page law to decide which particular provisions should be kept.  He clearly thought that was impractical.  Justice Ginsburg made the half-joking suggestion that the government sit down with the challengers and try to agree on which provisions are peripheral, which Kneedler said could not be done.  Scalia quipped that they could issue a conference report just like congressional committees do when they are trying to iron out differences between the Senate and House on a bill.

Kneedler argued that the doctrine of “judicial restraint” calls for not throwing out the entire law.  But Justice Kennedy pointed out that if the Court struck down only part of the law, and the result was increased risk for insurance companies “that Congress had never intended… we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider [and it could] be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than…striking the whole [law].”

Clement told the Court that “the choice is to give Congress the task of fixing this statute…after some of it is struck down, or giving them the task of simply fixing the problem on a clean slate.”  He did not think it was “a close choice.”  The entire law “should fall.”

The afternoon session started at 1:00 and was again argued on behalf of the government by Solicitor General Verrilli.  It concerned the new Medicaid spending conditions imposed on the states by ObamaCare.  This question is murkier than the individual mandate.  But if the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional and strikes down the entire law, they can avoid the Medicaid question in its entirety.

Verrilli ended his argument with a startling claim – that the provisions of the ObamaCare law actually “secure the blessings of liberty.”  He said with a straight face that “for the Court’s obligation to ensure that the federal government remains a government of enumerated powers, that this is not a case in any of its aspects that calls that into question.”

Paul Clement could not let Verrilli get away with that absurd claim.  He ended the day by saying that while he appreciated what the SG had said, he:

would respectfully suggest that it’s a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not.  And it’s a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the States an offer that they can’t refuse, and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that Congress can do more because it’s voluntary, we can force the States to do whatever we tell them to.  That is a direct threat to our federalism.

I can’t think of a better ending to three days of arguments in the Supreme Court over fundamental issues of liberty and the power of the government in what is surely the most important case heard by the Court since Brown v. Board of Education.

(Thumbnail on PJM homepage assembled from multiple Shutterstock.com elements.)