Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent, on January 2, wrote:
Now, it’s possible that expected swing vote John Roberts won’t bother considering such disruptions and consequences in reaching his decision.
He actually wrote that! He advocates that the Supreme Court ignore the US Constitution and find in a manner that suits him, to consider factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the ObamaCare law. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge over the Affordable Care Act via King v. Burwell, and Sargent is worried that the Supreme Court will actually decide based upon the US Constitution rather than what he wants.
It seems that the Supreme Court will decide if ObamaCare subsidies in the three dozen states on the federal exchange is constitutional. An unconstitutional finding could, in Sargent’s words, “potentially depriving millions of health coverage….”
Is Sargent serious? One must wonder given some reasons Sargent gives for ignoring the US Constitution:
… the law, now heading into its second year, is clearly working as intended …
One thing to watch as we approach the SCOTUS hearings on King v. Burwell this spring is how many people are newly qualifying for subsidies in those states as this year’s enrollment period continues.
… enrollment data that suggests that number could be very large – which could (theoretically, at least) make it harder for SCOTUS to gut the law.
So we could be looking at a lot of people who would lose subsidies in the event of a bad SCOTUS ruling… [‘lot’ emphasized in the original, ‘bad’ emphasized by me]
… it’s too early to determine how many new people would be adversely impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against the law.
… in general terms a very high percentage of those on the federal exchange appear to qualify for subsidies:
Highlighting the potential for such a SCOTUS decision to result in widespread disruptions and dire consequences …
In federal-exchange states where the largest numbers of people might lose subsidies if SCOTUS rules against the law, state officials might be less likely to then set up their own exchanges to keep the subsidies flowing.
Sargent even cites Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation: “The impact of a potential Supreme Court decision against the law continues to grow.”
So there you have it. Sargent thinks that potential disruption of subsidies should override the US Constitution, and that Supreme Court justices should consider what may happen to millions of people over the law.
Sadly, Sargent is serious.
Be very careful writing an article that advocates ignoring the Constitution. The next session may see the first amendment, you know, the amendment that speaks about freedom of the press, ignored, and a law suit that could put (and your liberal friends) out of business could be offered.
Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer