On what do you base your claim that "Kavanaugh’s approach to the interpretation of statutes suggests that he would rule against mandatory coverage for preëxisting conditions." It can't be his approach to outlandish ACA claims or severability, so what's it based on?
-
-
-
Maybe that he previously dissented in a case which upheld the constitutionality of the ACA?https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/brett-kavanaugh-could-take-an-ax-to-obamacare/2018/07/09/c8817c50-83df-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html …
-
He dissented on jurisdictional claim that would have prevented court from reaching merits (thereby preventing legal invalidation). He also turned away multiple other ACA challenges. So how does that substantiate the claim?
-
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t discuss this point. Lawyers I have heard discuss it seem to me to be saying he would side with the justices who held ACA unconstitutional. Perhaps, like Scalia, he doesn’t think health care is interstate commerce?
-
That was never Scalia's position and not what NFIB dissent said. In any event, if Kavanaugh agreed with NFIB dissenters in subsequent case, he'd merely replicate Kennedy's vote and ACA still survives 5-4.
-
As you surely know, Texas and several other states are suing to invalidate ACA. Their reasoning, as I understand it, is that without the mandate the Robert’s tax argument is void. This seems to dovetail with kavanaugh’s jurisdictional dissent, no?
-
Not really. Whether something is a tax for anti-injunction purposes is quite different from the constitutional inquiry. As for the case more broadly, I've written extensively about it (and even filed an amicus brief in it). https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/11/the-clever-red-state-lawsuit-against-the …https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/opinion/an-obamacare-case-so-wrong-it-has-provoked-a-bipartisan-outcry.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Good piece Jeff. The only problem is: today's Republican Party isn't simply far more rightwing. It's run by ppl who do not care abt facts or morality--only power & lining their pockets. They *want* the same immoral figures on SCOTUS to enrich the few.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Surrender is always the worst option. When
@TheDemocrats don’t put up a fight, voters think they don’t care enough to bother. And then voters don’t bother to show up at the polls.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But your article doesn't factor in DEMS Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp who might sadly support Kavanaugh. Schumer cannot reign in his DEM caucus, and is publicly forgiving of their likely betrayal.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nice article, Jeffrey. Thanks
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Fortunately, no choice in the matter.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The Dems even CONSIDERING meeting with this viper is inexcusable. NOTHING to gain.
#BlockKavanaugh#MerrickGarland@DNC@SenateDems@SenSchumerThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes they should! Let’s speak about Kavanaugh, believing woman shouldn’t have the same access to birth control that men do to viagra.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Democrat Senators Demand a Million Bush Documents Re Kavanaugh but WON'T SIT DOWN & ASK HIM QUESTIONS! WHAT OPEN MINDS???
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.