OK, are lots of you guys on pins and needles about the impending Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, like I am?
From looking at the court calendar, there are three days left this session for announcement of opinions: Thursday, Friday and Monday.
My prediction: We're going to win the marriage case. I don't have any real doubt about that because of the fact that the Supreme Court let so many lower-court rulings stand in the fall. The only question is, how big are we going to win it?
I'm hoping for a broad opinion that settles the issue once and for all. But since this is, by nature, a conservative court, I don't know that it's guaranteed that we'll get that. There are a couple of scenarios where we could "win" but the court would stop short of a total, sweeping pronouncement that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. If the court veers off in that direction, there could be all kinds of negative unintended consequences. Let's pray not. Anthony Kennedy, the scope of this win is up to you. Be a hero to the gay community one more time.
The other big case outstanding is the Obamacare case involving whether the federal government can pay premium discounts for people outside of the states that have set up their own insurance exchanges. This is really a stupid case since it's easy to say that the word "state" can also include the federal government, which is, after all, THE state. However, the justices may not see it that way and be sticklers. It's a tough call on this one. But the tone of questioning on this case, in which the justices suggested that they could go ahead and not let a negative ruling take effect till next year, has me leaning toward the Supremes going ahead and killing Obamacare. This would be a HUGE mistake. The GOP Congress isn't going to lift a finger to help the 6 million people who will be out of insurance, and although Obamacare is deeply flawed, it's still better than what we had and is a step on the way to something better. The court's already had one awful ruling this term affecting Obamacare (the Hobby Lobby decision) and my guess is that we may see another. (And I'm REALLY hoping I'm wrong.)
Impatient Nation Demands Supreme Court Just Get To The Gay Stuff
WASHINGTON—Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in an ongoing affirmative action lawsuit Monday, the impatient American public reportedly demanded that the nation’s highest court stop jerking around with all these other cases and just get to the gay stuff already. “Screw all these other cases, man, we’re ready for the real stuff—you know...the gay stuff,” said Indianapolis resident Eric Newcomb, 36, just one of millions of restless Americans who claimed they are sick of waiting for the Supreme Court to pull the trigger on a gay rights decision, noting that the judicial body has already had “a solid three months” to consider the constitutional issues associated with homosexual marriage and same-sex partner benefits. “Seriously, stop wasting time with all these boring appeals nobody cares about and bring on the gays. I mean, do they honestly think anyone gives a shit about any other case?”
At press time, the nation had thrown up its hands in frustration upon learning that the Supreme Court was currently preparing a 46-page opinion addressing the jurisdictional conflicts raised by Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett.
My hunch is that, in the event the Supremes kill the subsidies, Congress would extend them at least through the 2016 election. I don't think a permanent solution would be forthcoming from Congress. The GOP is too divided on the issue. Some GOP members want to fix the subsidy issue, while others are intent on using it to kill Obamacare entirely. It's not a sure thing they would even reach an election year compromise, but I'm betting they would out of fear that those 6 million lost subsidies would hurt the Republican presidential candidate.
If there were ever a more vivid example of the GOP's ambivalence toward moderate and low income Americans, I can't think of it right off.
I'm optimistic too about the marriage case. I feel that King v Burrell is so different from the Hobby Lobby case--it least its dramatic implications for the states without exchanges -- that the SC will punt it with clear instructions for Congress to deal with the case. That's what I hope. Not sure if you saw this piece in VOX, but it gives an interesting analysis on how the court may be viewing the K v B case: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/20/8815097/king-v-burwe … in/5690430