• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

One way or another, he’s a liar.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you do not.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

Celebrate the fucking wins.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

So many bastards, so little time.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

“But what about the lurkers?”

Anne Laurie is a fucking hero in so many ways. ~ Betty Cracker

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Donald Trump found guilty as fuck – May 30, 2024!

Hell hath no fury like a farmer bankrupted.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / The key question in Texas v California

The key question in Texas v California

by David Anderson|  November 10, 202011:04 am| 42 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

Big comment from Kavanaugh just now: "I tend to agree with you" that the case is "very straightforward" under our severability precedents. Those precedents (including an opinion authored by Kavanaugh last term) say there is usually a strong presumption in favor of severability.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) November 10, 2020


Under this question, assuming that Texas et al have standing to sue, the limit of the change in the law is ripping out about a page and nothing else. It would be a constitutional and legal nothingburger as standard severability doctrine is that if the Court finds something unconstitutional, it only carves out the smallest chunk of the law needed to bring the law back into compliance with the constitution and make the operation of the law non-banana-pants crazy.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The ACA in Court today
Next Post: We stopped them. »

Reader Interactions

42Comments

  1. 1.

    Benw

    November 10, 2020 at 11:11 am

    Bout time someone tried to keep the damn gubment outta my Medicare!

  2. 2.

    burnspbesq

    November 10, 2020 at 11:11 am

    Roberts is giving the Texas Solicitor General (who is an asshole, BTW) a really hard time on severability. This looks like it might be the way out that can garner five votes (although standing should be the way out).

  3. 3.

    Frankensteinbeck

    November 10, 2020 at 11:12 am

    Thank goodness.  I am so happy to be wrong.

  4. 4.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    November 10, 2020 at 11:15 am

    They would basically be ruling a tax is unconstitutional. Sounds like on target for the Federalist Society to me.

  5. 5.

    JPL

    November 10, 2020 at 11:18 am

    @burnspbesq:  Kavanaugh and Roberts both appear to agree.
    Hawkins is awful.

  6. 6.

    debbie

    November 10, 2020 at 11:21 am

    Are we sure Kavanaugh knows what case he’s talking about?

  7. 7.

    Omnes Omnibus

    November 10, 2020 at 11:21 am

    Personally, I think that the ACA will survive this challenge simply because there are too many legal route to keep it alive.  To toss it out would require an affirmative choice to get rid of it despite the many better legal arguments for keeping it.  I don’t think the Court is at that point yet.  I know others are going to vehemently disagree and I understand why.  I simply come to a different conclusion.

  8. 8.

    burnspbesq

    November 10, 2020 at 11:21 am

    @JPL: 

    Hawkins is awful.

    Of course he is. He was hired by Paxton.

  9. 9.

    HinTN

    November 10, 2020 at 11:21 am

    @debbie: Does it matter?

  10. 10.

    Calouste

    November 10, 2020 at 11:22 am

    @debbie: A case of Miller Lite?

  11. 11.

    Immanentize

    November 10, 2020 at 11:25 am

    I was hoping for a win on standing — no one can demonstrate any injury — they don’t have to buy insurance and there is no penalty if they don’t.  Where is the case in controversy?  But I heard Verrilli (sp?) this morning who is arguing for the ACA  and he seems to have just blown past that.

  12. 12.

    Immanentize

    November 10, 2020 at 11:27 am

    @Omnes Omnibus: I agree.  Also, realistically, the ACA is a decade old and completely interwoven into the fabric of our economy.  The Court is already suffering enough legitimacy concerns to almost wreck it.  Do they want to tank the economy too?

  13. 13.

    JPL

    November 10, 2020 at 11:28 am

    Robert’s point that if Congress wants to overturn the law, they can.   It’s not the Courts responsibility.

  14. 14.

    patrick II

    November 10, 2020 at 11:29 am

    Some years ago they zeroed out the cost of admission to the national park for handicapped people (I have such a pass).  As far as I know there is still a national park system.

  15. 15.

    lofgren

    November 10, 2020 at 11:36 am

    @patrick II: So liberating the national parks for development by our captains of industry is another benefit of taking health insurance away from millions of people?

  16. 16.

    randy khan

    November 10, 2020 at 11:40 am

    Even if the Supreme Court restores order here (which, fingers crossed, it sounds like it might), we still have the problem that a crazy pants idea was heartily endorsed by the district court and then approved by the Court of Appeals.  It’s great when the Supremes act like adults, but as anyone who has had children knows, it’s hard to supervise them 24-7.

  17. 17.

    Yarrow

    November 10, 2020 at 11:40 am

    @Immanentize:

    The Court is already suffering enough legitimacy concerns to almost wreck it. Do they want to tank the economy too?

    How much is this a thing? Are the Justices (or any judge, really) influenced by the wider culture and thoughts of their legacy enough so that they’d say, “can’t rule like that…it’ll really upend the economy and make me look bad.”

    I do understand the Court operates in the real world where such factors have impact. But that also makes it seem like “the law” is just “what we or society think at the moment” all gussied up with fancy words and people wearing robes to give it some kind of legitimacy.

  18. 18.

    Mo Salad

    November 10, 2020 at 11:41 am

    We were worried, some were even encouraged, about how a quick kill of ACA would affect the Georgia Senate races. Let’s look at the flip side of a quick, “sever out the penalty, keep the law” ruling. Will that depress Republican turnout? “Well, they can’t kill Obummer care even after this? Why bother?” I don’t know the answer, but I’d like to hear other’s thoughts.

  19. 19.

    patrick II

    November 10, 2020 at 11:44 am

    @lofgren:

    If it isn’t taxed it can’t exist.

  20. 20.

    JPL

    November 10, 2020 at 11:55 am

    @Immanentize:   Since some of the members questioned standing,  maybe they will still decide that.    If so, would they have to wait until spring to do so??

  21. 21.

    West of the Cascades

    November 10, 2020 at 11:56 am

    @Mo Salad: No way this opinion comes out before February – there will be some anguished dissents no matter what the majority decides.

  22. 22.

    Immanentize

    November 10, 2020 at 11:56 am

    @Yarrow: Yes they are keenly aware of their legitimacy as it is the basis of their relevance and power.  One old quote I like goes something like: “the Court does not blindly follow public opinion but they do read the newspapers.”. In other words, they are of the world and aware of their reputation.  There seems to be some empirical research to back that up.

    To me, as a pretty close observer, I would say that the longer a justice is on the court, the more the nature of the institution affects them.  The young Justice Rhenquist was much more of a bomb thrower than the Chief Justice Rhenquist who had become a very effective institutionalist.

  23. 23.

    JPL

    November 10, 2020 at 11:57 am

    @Mo Salad: IMO  There are many ways of riling up their base, and using Marjorie Greene is just one way.   Attacking the SOS was designed to rile up the base, but not necessarily lose the moderates.

  24. 24.

    Immanentize

    November 10, 2020 at 12:01 pm

    @JPL: This opinion ought to take quite a long time to complete.  If there were any overwhelming vote in favor of dumping it on standing — maybe 7-2? — it would be possible to get something quicker.  It’s a move called “improvidently granted” but the dissenters would still get time to write opinions and distribute them.  But given the import, I don’t think this Court will be so bold.  So, unlikely anything before February or March at the earliest.  June if it is a really divided court.

    ETA what West of the Cascades said quicker

  25. 25.

    JPL

    November 10, 2020 at 12:02 pm

    @Immanentize: What did you think of Barrett?

  26. 26.

    Yarrow

    November 10, 2020 at 12:05 pm

    @Immanentize:  Thanks. It just seems really weird to be saying things like “Roberts is concerned with his legacy” and so forth when talking about legal opinions.

  27. 27.

    Immanentize

    November 10, 2020 at 12:09 pm

    @JPL: Today or generally?  Today I thought she kids floated on the surface.  Roberts has been thinking about this statutory scheme for almost a decade.

  28. 28.

    Ken

    November 10, 2020 at 12:10 pm

    @patrick II: @lofgren: If they don’t address the standing issue, does that become an issue for other (non-ACA) lawsuits?  That is, can someone appeal a judgment based on lack of standing, using the theory that the Court didn’t address the standing issue in this case, so may have intended to carve out an exception?

  29. 29.

    Roger Moore

    November 10, 2020 at 12:10 pm

    @JPL:

    Robert’s point that if Congress wants to overturn the law, they can. It’s not the Courts responsibility.

    That seems like an argument tailored to convince Gorshuch.  He used exactly the same point in McGirt v Oklahoma when arguing that the reservations in Oklahoma still existed: if Congress wanted them gone, it was their job to disestablish them directly rather than undermine them and hope the courts would rule they no longer existed.

  30. 30.

    laura

    November 10, 2020 at 12:27 pm

    @Immanentize: right there with you on the procedural aspect. However, I’m not one of nine wise souls. If it falls on severability-does Chevron stand as well – deference wise?

  31. 31.

    burnspbesq

    November 10, 2020 at 12:28 pm

    @Ken:

    Standing is jurisdictional. It can be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceeding, and lack of standing can’t be waived. At least that’s what the cases say.

  32. 32.

    burnspbesq

    November 10, 2020 at 12:33 pm

    Good quick summary.

    https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/11/before-and-before-and-before.html

  33. 33.

    burnspbesq

    November 10, 2020 at 12:41 pm

    A very cogent analysis of the standing issue, from an unexpected source.

    https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/09/standing-to-challenge-the-individual-mandate/

  34. 34.

    elm

    November 10, 2020 at 12:42 pm

    @Mo Salad: Georgia voters who are Republican-inclined aren’t going to hear any honest news about this or anything else.

  35. 35.

    Another Scott

    November 10, 2020 at 1:13 pm

    @Mo Salad: I always laugh when I see your ‘nym.

    And then I recall there’s a football player.

    And then I recall there’s a long-distance runner.

    And then I try to remember which is which, or are they the same guy?  Why aren’t there marathoners playing football in the Premiere League??!

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  36. 36.

    catclub

    November 10, 2020 at 1:21 pm

    @Immanentize: I agree. Also, realistically, the ACA is a decade old and completely interwoven into the fabric of our economy.

     

    I would argue that the  tax has been excised for over two years and the system has worked fine during that time.

  37. 37.

    artem1s

    November 10, 2020 at 1:46 pm

    @Roger Moore:

    Robert’s point that if Congress wants to overturn the law, they can. It’s not the Courts responsibility.

    he also used the same argument in reverse on pre-clearance.  Paraphrasing here: If Congress wants pre-clearance, they can pass a Voting Rights Act where all 50 states have to adhere to pre-clearance not just 17 of them.

  38. 38.

    Steve in the ATL

    November 10, 2020 at 2:16 pm

    @Mo Salad: @Another Scott: at any given moment, roughly 30% of the Egyptian population is wearing a Mo Salah jersey

  39. 39.

    Bill Arnold

    November 10, 2020 at 2:50 pm

    @Yarrow:

    How much is this a thing? Are the Justices (or any judge, really) influenced by the wider culture and thoughts of their legacy enough so that they’d say, “can’t rule like that…it’ll really upend the economy and make me look bad.”

    In the real world, if 10s of millions of people suddenly lose their health insurance because of an insane Supreme Court decision not instantly or preemptively rendered irrelevant by Congress and a POTUS Biden, some fraction of them (or their loved ones) have conditions that need to be treated else they will die, and some small fraction will buy an accurate rifle with a scope and start hunting Republicans, including judges, from long range (or whatever). The size of this subset might be substantially greater than zero; I won’t try to guess.
    So there’s that Real World consideration.
    We could see a similar descent into political assassination and death squads (including RW) if the Republicans indeed try to steal the election (5+ million popular vote loss, and defacto elector vote loss).
    This is a future to actively avoid.

  40. 40.

    Bill Arnold

    November 10, 2020 at 3:00 pm

    The non-precedent severability arguments in this case are very weird to people outside the legal profession.  I see the US code as a couple-hundred-year old accretion of patches, and by the rules of real-world causality, their arguments would mean that any laws passed after the ACA would be at least potentially guided or affected by it and should also be invalidated.  Is there a several-page explainer available (even if targeted at specialists)?

  41. 41.

    J R in WV

    November 10, 2020 at 3:32 pm

    @Bill Arnold:

    In the real world, if 10s of millions of people suddenly lose their health insurance because of an insane Supreme Court decision not instantly or preemptively rendered irrelevant by Congress and a POTUS Biden, some fraction of them (or their loved ones) have conditions that need to be treated else they will die, and some small fraction will buy an accurate rifle with a scope and start hunting Republicans, including judges, from long range (or whatever). The size of this subset might be substantially greater than zero; I won’t try to guess.

    I have to make the same assumption for a legislative body that succeeds in removing health care from millions of people. They will make themselves targets for people seeking payback for the torture and death of their kids, older parents, mates and lovers.

    Also: it is actually racist genocide to end health care for many Americans merely because it was successfully implemented by a Black President.

    During a lethal pandemic.

    The very idea is insanely evil, and for these people to not give that a moment’s thought shows their lack of morality.

  42. 42.

    janesays

    November 10, 2020 at 6:45 pm

    @Mo Salad: 

    I don’t understand why anybody would assume that the case was going to be decided that quickly. It’s extremely unlikely that we’ll see a ruling before June 2021. And that was always the case.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - way2blue - SINALEI, SAMOA—RESPITE EDITION—FEBRUARY 2025.  (second of five) 8
Image by way2blue (7/16/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • Baud on Thursday Morning Open Thread (Jul 17, 2025 @ 8:35am)
  • Librettist on Thursday Morning Open Thread (Jul 17, 2025 @ 8:33am)
  • Betty Cracker on Thursday Morning Open Thread (Jul 17, 2025 @ 8:32am)
  • Layer8Problem on Thursday Morning Open Thread (Jul 17, 2025 @ 8:32am)
  • catclub on Thursday Morning Open Thread (Jul 17, 2025 @ 8:30am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!