I'm scratching my head at the strategy here. Blue states/House Dems are who appealed this to SCOTUS – but why? Yes, they assume SCOTUS will once again uphold the ACA, but that's not guaranteed; ...
... meanwhile, the bad ruling was stayed, + the case had been remanded for further proceedings, meaning ACA was alive for at least another 2 years.
The appellants asked SCOTUS for an expedited ruling (hoping in part to make it an election year issue?), ...
The appellants asked SCOTUS for an expedited ruling (hoping in part to make it an election year issue?), ...
... but SCOTUS put it on the standard schedule, so the ruling won't come until after the election anyway.
So is there an actual reason to appeal it now, rather than 1-2 years from now when:
• healthcare will be a good midterm-election issue for Dems, as it was in 2018 ...
So is there an actual reason to appeal it now, rather than 1-2 years from now when:
• healthcare will be a good midterm-election issue for Dems, as it was in 2018 ...
...
• Dems may control the WH +/or Senate, giving them more power to remedy any damage the court does
• 2 years' more healthcare will have been rendered, saving lives
• We may have a whole new healthcare system, making ACA moot
? ...
• Dems may control the WH +/or Senate, giving them more power to remedy any damage the court does
• 2 years' more healthcare will have been rendered, saving lives
• We may have a whole new healthcare system, making ACA moot
? ...
... So haven't we just accelerated the possible demise of the ACA for zero benefit? Couldn't we have waited to appeal the whole thing after it returned from remand?
I'm really asking, actually. In particular, I trust these blue-State AGs, so I'd love to hear the logic.
/Fin
I'm really asking, actually. In particular, I trust these blue-State AGs, so I'd love to hear the logic.
/Fin
