During the Barrett Verification Hearing, we discussed the story from the Democrats and the media that the Supreme Court Affordable Care Act was faltering. Some Democratic Senators said Barrett was part of a conspiracy to bring her to justice to kill the ACA. As I said repeatedly, the narrative was completely independent of any legal reality as at least two Conservative judges – Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh – would likely vote for separability and thus uphold the law. You have previously voted on similar cases. Today’s hearing on Obamacare day at the Supreme Court. In California versus Texas, the unfair and unsubstantiated narrative against Justice Barrett was exposed again, with both Roberts and Kavanaugh expressly reiterating their positions on separability. Will any of these senators or analysts now acknowledge the hype in the exaggeration of the hearing?
At the hearing, Kavanaugh stated: “Given our precedents for severability, it seems fairly clear that the appropriate remedy is to delete the mandate provision and leave the rest of the law in force, the provisions on pre-existing terms and conditions rest.”
Roberts added that the severability case in the ACA case is obvious and compelling: “You find it hard to argue that Congress intended to overthrow the entire act if the mandate were knocked down, if the same Congress that took the punishment cut to zero, didn’t even try to undo the rest of the act. “Roberts added that some might want the court to crush all of the law,” but that’s not our job. “
Both judges took exactly the positions that emerged from their previous opinions. That gives an immediate majority to uphold the law. However, Democrats and much of the media struggled to fuel the notion that the law could be seriously crushed before the elections, and used Barrett as a vehicle to advance this false narrative. The media didn’t even question the senators’ repeated claims that Barrett’s nomination was being pushed for precisely that purpose – a proposal that was, at first glance, ridiculous.
Because of this, I objected to the listener narration and reported the following:
If she votes against the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in a case slated for argument on Nov. 10, the Democrats are reportedly planning to bring back the pictures of people becoming Barrett’s victims. I previously wrote about how unfair and unprecedented this ad for a confirmation hearing was. Not only are Democrats now basing their confirmatory votes on the expected vote of a candidate in a pending case, but they are indeed misleading the public. As I mentioned earlier, the Senators have been open to voting against Barrett unless she assures them that she will vote to uphold the law. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D., HI) recently announced that she would vote against Barrett because “she will vote to crush the affordable care law”. In reality, the ACA case is unlikely to be put down. The court can agree to the lower court by declaring the individual mandate of the original ACA unconstitutional. The real question, however, is whether this provision can be “severed” from the rest of the law. Most legal experts believe that the court has a clear majority in favor of the settlement and upholding the rest of the law. The law was originally saved by Chief Justice John Roberts, who found the individual mandate to be constitutional. Congress later revoked the mandate. He and Justice Brett Kavanaugh are believed to be likely votes to be separated. Even if the ACA has been put down, both parties undertake to further protect pre-existing terms.
None of this matters. The Democrats continue to display these giant images designed to portray Barrett like a serial killer surrounded by her victims. Now they won’t even be in the room. The images will be all that remains on the democratic side, a fitting symbol for a now literal empty sack strategy.
So again. As predicted, there are at least five votes for separability. Senate Democrats and many media outlets promoted this false narrative of the ACA’s impending death, and some directly accused Barrett of being a judicial officer to carry out a conspiracy in front of the court. Like so many false narratives, it probably just drifts off into the ether without further discussion or correction. Anything can happen, of course, but today’s hearing shows how this relentless narrative has been upheld in the Senate and the media with willful disregard for the legal facts.