COVID-19 & Healthcare

I posted the other day that the Libertarian lawyers who write for the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post will make a  Textualism argument in King v. Burwell, arguing that the text of “ObamaCare” limits federal subsidies only to people who buy insurance from state-run exchanges, not from the federal exchange.

What these Libertarian lawyers are engaged in, in my opinion, is perpetrating a fraud upon the court, for which the U.S. Supreme Court should impose sanctions and refer these lawyers for bar disciplinary proceedings. I have rarely seen anything as blatant as this. This case should not be in front of the Supreme Court.

Should the Court actually side with the plaintiff’s in this case, in furtherance of their fraud, we will have a serious constitutional crisis on our hands.

Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times’ legal columnist, shares my assessment. The Supreme Court at Stake:

In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority [tax clause], to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.

* * *

But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.

Read more

In early March the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, in which Libertarian lawyers who write for the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post will make a  Textualism argument that the text of “ObamaCare” limits federal subsidies only to people who buy insurance from state-run exchanges, not from the federal exchange.

In recent weeks amicus briefs have been filed in support of the Obama administration’s position that federal subsidies extend to the federal exchanges, and in support of preserving the long-established rules of statutory construction and interpretation. The rationale behind the King v. Burwell case has been entirely debunked. See, Anti-ACA case descends into gibberish and In King v. Burwell, we already know the plaintiffs are wrong. But will SCOTUS care? for a brief summary.

What these Libertarian lawyers are engaged in, in my opinion, is perpetrating a fraud upon the court, for which the U.S. Supreme Court should impose sanctions and refer these lawyers for bar disciplinary proceedings. I have rarely seen anything as blatant as this. This case should not be in front of the Supreme Court.

Should the Court actually side with the plaintiff’s in this case, in furtherance of their fraud, we will have a serious constitutional crisis on our hands.

Should the Court side with the plaintiffs, millions of Americans will lose their subsidies for healthcare insurance. This decision would unleash chaos and do considerable harm to insurers, families, state budgets, the federal budget, and to hospitals.

Read more