Matthew Yglesias disagrees with Ezra Kleins dismissal from yesterday. --- Voxs Ezra Klein mounted an argument that its very unlikely the Supreme Court will affirm Halbig, citing the pragmatic reality that taking away health insurance from millions of people who already have it could be a political disaster. This makes a ton of sense to me. But as a forecast it would carry more credibility if we were seeing it on Fox News or The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Justice Scalia has gone so far as to say he doesnt read the New York Times or the Washington Post because theyre too liberal, so its not obvious that ideas circulating in the non-conservative press tell us much about the thinking of conservative judges. After all, John Boehner and Republican governors could be spending this week working to avert this potential political fiasco by amending the law or switching off the federal exchange. But they arent. So the idea that Halbig would be bad politics does not seem any more persuasive to most conservatives than the idea that its bad law or bad policy. All of which is to say that a decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Halbig would entail a substantial act of ideological apostasy by one or more justices. Apostasy isnt impossible. Justices Roberts committed a major betrayal by voting to uphold the Affordable Care Acts individual mandate, and Justices Kagan and Breyer committed one in the opposite direction (perhaps as part of a deal) to strike down some of its Medicaid clauses. But acts of apostasy are psychologically, socially, and professionally difficult. It would be a mistake to simply assume Roberts will commit another one. And it would be an even bigger mistake for liberals to draw excessively broad conclusions from their own media diet. On the right, Halbig is broadly considered good law and five of the nine Justices side with the right most of the time.
Posted on: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:39:42 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015