SCOTUS Starts Hearings on Obamacare. Here’s What You Need To Know. | Beaufort County Now | On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) in the case California v. Texas. | daily wire, SCOTUS, supreme court, obamacare, oral arguments, individual mandate, november 10, 2020

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

SCOTUS Starts Hearings on Obamacare. Here’s What You Need To Know.

Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Hank Berrien.

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) in the case California v. Texas. The case revolves around whether the plaintiffs have established standing to challenge the minimum-coverage provision in the act as well as whether the minimum-coverage provision can be "severed" from the rest of the ACA.

    Some Republican-governed states have attacked the law's individual insurance mandate as unconstitutional, and thus they want the Supreme Court to repeal the entire law. As reported in July, "The Trump administration's U.S. Justice Department argues in the health care case California v. Texas that the entire health care insurance law should fall after Congress in 2017 eliminated the tax penalty for failure to purchase health insurance. The penalty provision could not be severed from the rest of the act because of its interrelationship to other critical features of the law, then-U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a recent brief."

    Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, perceived as conservatives on the Supreme Court, have previously argued for the doctrine of severability, which would allow Obamacare to survive even if the insurance mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

    Kavanaugh joined the 7-2 majority in Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, ruling that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act could be protected despite the exception for collection of government debts to the federal ban on cellphone robocalls, which could be severed from the act. Roberts wrote in Seila Law v. CFPB that the "for cause" removal protection for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could be separated from the Dodd-Frank act that had created the bureau. He stated, "We think it clear that Congress would prefer that we use a scalpel rather than a bull- dozer in curing the constitutional defect we identify today."

    In Seila, Justice Clarence Thomas countered the Court's doctrine of severability, writing, "Because the power of judicial review does not allow courts to revise statutes, Mitchell, supra, at 983, the Court's severability doctrine must be rooted in statutory interpretation. But, even viewing severability as an interpretive question, I remain skeptical of our doctrine. As I have previously explained, 'the severability doctrine often requires courts to weigh in on statutory provisions that no party has standing to challenge, bringing courts dangerously close to issuing advisory opinions.'"

    Thomas continued:

  • In short, when multiple provisions of law combine to cause a constitutional injury, the Court's current approach allows the Court to decide which provision to sever. The text of a severability clause does not guide that choice. ... The Court is thus left to choose based on nothing more than speculation as to what the Legislature would have preferred. And the result of its choice can have a dramatic effect on the governing statutory scheme.
  • It is incumbent on us to take a close look at our precedents to make sure that we are not exceeding the scope of the judicial power. Given my concerns about our modern severability doctrine and the fact that severability makes no difference to the dispute before us, I would resolve this case by simply denying the CFPB's petition to enforce the civil investigative demand.


Latest Op-Ed & Politics

The leftwing nuts hate Trump and now the hate anyone who supported Trump. Next is Franklin Graham
She is tiny in frame, only 4 feet, 8 inches tall, but Sherry-Lynn Womack, a Lee County School board member who is starting her second term, is standing tall against a liberal driven backlash for exercising her First Amendment rights.
Before he left office, former President Donald Trump ordered the Secret Service to continue protecting his children for the next six months.
As North Carolina prepares to celebrate National School Choice Week Jan. 24-30, the cause of educational freedom could see even more advancement during the North Carolina General Assembly’s 2021-2022 session.
Is the “Jet Pack Guy” who has been spotted several times flying miles in the sky near Los Angeles airport really a “guy”? Or is it just a drone dressed up to look like a guy?
Governor Roy Cooper has appointed William “Bill” Wolfe to serve as a Superior Court Judge in Judicial District 7C, serving Edgecombe and Wilson counties.


Get a good cup of coffee and decompress with The Wolfman as he gives us his account of what really happened on the ground in DC. This is an exclusive series that will not be found anywhere but BCN.
A recent examination by the Tax Foundation shows North Carolina’s high net migration rate may be due to its friendly tax climate.
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has now joined the ranks of those of us who have created moderated informational platforms that act as a hybrid publication.
President Donald Trump pardoned and commuted the sentences of dozens of people during his final hours in office this week.
The great gift this Christmas was that help was on the way. The vaccine was a welcome gift 10 months into the pandemic. It is no exaggeration that North Carolina’s vaccination rollout started poorly.
Here's an explanation of why Mitch McConnell stabbed Donald Trump in the back
He thinks it's clearly unconstitutional to try a man already out of office.


Back to Top