Thursday, March 05, 2015
Thoughts on King v Burwell.
"states" has a plain meaning. there's discussion going on about federalism.
I think the burden on the states may be overstated.
If the court rules against Obamacare, there are several things than can happen.
Congress could act to fix it; this congress or a future one.
The states that had not set up their own exchanges could do so, or not, as they chose.
Some states might prefer to stay opted out. There is some pressure to opt in, but it remains a choice.
When ruling on legislation, where there is no constitutional obstacle, the court usually should go by what congress said, not what they meant, because such problems are fixable by congress, in theory.
The court need not be too troubled that -this- congress is unlikely to rush though a quick fix.
If the people don't like it, they can elect a new congress, particularly the house.
When congress chooses not to fix the problem, that suggests the court's reading was correct, or at least acceptable.
"states" has a plain meaning. there's discussion going on about federalism.
I think the burden on the states may be overstated.
If the court rules against Obamacare, there are several things than can happen.
Congress could act to fix it; this congress or a future one.
The states that had not set up their own exchanges could do so, or not, as they chose.
Some states might prefer to stay opted out. There is some pressure to opt in, but it remains a choice.
When ruling on legislation, where there is no constitutional obstacle, the court usually should go by what congress said, not what they meant, because such problems are fixable by congress, in theory.
The court need not be too troubled that -this- congress is unlikely to rush though a quick fix.
If the people don't like it, they can elect a new congress, particularly the house.
When congress chooses not to fix the problem, that suggests the court's reading was correct, or at least acceptable.
Comments:
Post a Comment
