XaiJu
law
law

patreon


OA500B: Bonus! Terrible Supreme Court Rulings; Machin's New Conditions

It's bonus OA!!! Andrew takes us through whatever the hell Manchin is trying to do with Republicans, then breaks down two Supreme Court rulings for us. Spoiler: they're terrible.

Links: For the People Act of 2021, 19-123 Fulton v. Philadelphia, California v. Texas

Appearances

None. Invite us on!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

OA500B: Bonus! Terrible Supreme Court Rulings; Machin's New Conditions

Comments

Appreciate the bonus episode, but I want to take issue with Andrew’s assumption that Democrats are likely to re-instate the penalty for not having MEC. From what I’ve read, the predictions of people abandoning their insurance have proved false—there has been no wave of healthy people abandoning their insurance. Having the subsidy allows people to have health insurance, which while it may not be as good as the NHS or Canadian Medicare, beats the hell out of being uninsured. The individual mandate was never popular (to put it mildly) and it’s looking like it may have been unnecessary (Remember, Obama campaigned in 2008 on a plan with no mandate, one of the few major distinctions between his policy positions and Hillary Clinton’s). People who qualify for ACA subsidized plans tend to be people who know what it’s like to be uninsured, and know having health insurance is better than not having it. Rather than waste political capital on re-instating an unpopular and unnecessary mandate, they should work on fixing other aspects of the ACA that let people fall through the holes (like the subsidy cliff that can leave people with incomes above 4xFPL unable to afford coverage) So I’m left to wonder—Andrew seems to be saying that this was a bad outcome based on his assumption that the mandate was needed. But if it isn’t, it seems to me this was as good an outcome as we can hope for—any reason why not?

Thanks for the special episode. In reading Alito’s concurrence it sounds like a majority opinion that fell apart when they failed to develop an alternative to Smith. I think Roberts strong armed Barrett and Kavanaugh, not Kagen & Sotomeyor (please excuse the spelling). If they find a workable alternative to Smith, they’ll take it.


More Creators