Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFriendly Reminder: No One Knows Anything About How SCOTUS Will Rule on Obamacare
[center][/center]
And thats a wrap on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell. My colleagues will have some insightful analysis of the legal battle over the four words that could decide the fate of Obamacare for you in a bit. But for now I just wanted to offer a friendly public service announcement as reactions begin to flood Twitter and the rest of the Internet: Take the looming predictions about how the court will ultimately rule on the subsidy issue with a heaping of salt.
For proof of how SCOTUS watchers (and headline writers) can overreact in the wake of oral arguments, we have to look no further than the last time the high court heard a case that had the potential to decide the fate of President Obamas health care law. After watching the first day of arguments in the 2012 blockbuster, Jeffrey Toobin famously declared that it was a train wreck for the White House. This law looks like its going to be struck down, the CNN legal expert and New Yorker writer said at the time. Im telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.
Toobin was far from alone in making that assessment. But in the end, of course, the high court voted 54 to preserve the individual mandate and avoid delivering what would have likely been a death blow to the Affordable Care Act.
As you may remember, much of the immediate analysis was focused on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the White House lawyer tasked with saving Obamacare then, as he is again this week. Verrilli stuttered, stumbled, and coughed out of the gates during the March 2012 arguments, drawing an onslaught of criticism from court watchers and prompting serious handwringing from liberals. Verilli seemed more like a nervous first-year law student than a respected advocate who had appeared before the court on 17 previous occasions, declared the Daily Beast. Mother Jones went one step further, writing that Verrillis performance just might go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court. After the solicitor generals argument and the rest of the days action, the Obama administration better start preparing for the possibility of a future without the individual mandate, warned the Huffington Post.
And thats a wrap on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell. My colleagues will have some insightful analysis of the legal battle over the four words that could decide the fate of Obamacare for you in a bit. But for now I just wanted to offer a friendly public service announcement as reactions begin to flood Twitter and the rest of the Internet: Take the looming predictions about how the court will ultimately rule on the subsidy issue with a heaping of salt.
For proof of how SCOTUS watchers (and headline writers) can overreact in the wake of oral arguments, we have to look no further than the last time the high court heard a case that had the potential to decide the fate of President Obamas health care law. After watching the first day of arguments in the 2012 blockbuster, Jeffrey Toobin famously declared that it was a train wreck for the White House. This law looks like its going to be struck down, the CNN legal expert and New Yorker writer said at the time. Im telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.
Toobin was far from alone in making that assessment. But in the end, of course, the high court voted 54 to preserve the individual mandate and avoid delivering what would have likely been a death blow to the Affordable Care Act.
As you may remember, much of the immediate analysis was focused on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the White House lawyer tasked with saving Obamacare then, as he is again this week. Verrilli stuttered, stumbled, and coughed out of the gates during the March 2012 arguments, drawing an onslaught of criticism from court watchers and prompting serious handwringing from liberals. Verilli seemed more like a nervous first-year law student than a respected advocate who had appeared before the court on 17 previous occasions, declared the Daily Beast. Mother Jones went one step further, writing that Verrillis performance just might go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court. After the solicitor generals argument and the rest of the days action, the Obama administration better start preparing for the possibility of a future without the individual mandate, warned the Huffington Post.
Source.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 744 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Friendly Reminder: No One Knows Anything About How SCOTUS Will Rule on Obamacare (Original Post)
Agschmid
Mar 2015
OP
Hekate
(90,978 posts)1. Rachel brought that up, too. It's not over till the overweight soprano yodels. nt
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)2. I didn't know Scalia was a soprano?
...he feels profound pain in a place he seriously values.
We can but hope.
Response to Agschmid (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)5. I'm starting to feel the same way...
I got my back up on that issue and took a side, and in retrospect I wish I had waited it out a bit.
I'll stay on the sidelines now since we really don't have a clear picture of what's happening with either issue.