In anticipation of the upcoming ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on whether or not ObamaCare enrollees are entitled to subsidies if they signed up on the federal exchange rather than state exchanges (King v. Burwell), Barack Obama sought to either shame the Supreme Court into making the decision he wants or do damage control ahead of a massive loss.
In remarks from the G7 summit…, Obama maintained there is no legal basis for the Supreme Court to overturn a key provision of the Affordable Care Act.
He argued it’s an “easy case” that never should have gotten to the highest court in the first place.
“It’s not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words in, as we were reminded repeatedly, a couple of thousand page piece of legislation,” said Obama, predicting that “the Supreme Court’s going to do what most legal scholars who have looked at this would expect them to do.”
Well, former federal judge Andrew Napolitano, FoxNews’ resident libertarian and ideological agnostic, called Barack Obama’s words “totally inappropriate” on The Kelly File this week. Watch:
Interesting that Obama sounds like he is expecting defeat based on what “most legal scholars” say, and that the Judge claims legal scholars come down on both sides of this issue.
“It’s not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words,” and yet the intent as outlined by those four words which are under contention is EXACTLY what Harvard Professor Jonathan Gruber claimed in the now famous videos from before the Affordable Care Act was passed.
As the judge states, based on information leaked over the years regarding the internal workings of the Supreme Court, it is most likely that the vote has happened, the opinion is written and is being polished. What we do not know completely is what it is going to say. However, given the Obama Administration’s batting average and that they may well have a mole, it looks like this is preemptive damage control from the White House.
What is interesting in the case currently sitting before the Supreme Court is that the success of the entire piece of ObamaCare legislation always did depend on the states setting up their own health insurance exchanges. In the original legislation that was required. In the first Supreme Court challenge to ObamaCare that so disheartened conservatives everywhere when Chief Justice John Roberts let the individual mandate stand, the ruling actually did state that the federal government could not force the states to set up exchanges, so 34 of them didn’t. Therefore, by the wording of the law itself, the people who signed up for health insurance on the federal site are not supposed to be eligible for federal subsidies. So, ultimately, this shot at whacking the ObamaCare piñata is actually courtesy of John Roberts and the Supreme Court, who at the time was called a diabolical genius by those who studied the ramifications with depth. Amazing how that works, huh.