The Supreme Court soon may have to put its money where its mouth is.
Within hours of the high court’s stunning 6-3 decision to uphold Obamacare subsidies, a Texas member of Congress proposed a bill that would force the nine court members and their staffs to enroll in the national healthcare system.
“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” Republican Brian Babin said Thursday.
“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for Obamacare,” Babin said.
The bill Babin is proposing would allow the federal government to provide health insurance only through the Affordable Care Act’s national exchange.
“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he said.
The issue of the case, King v. Burwell, centered on whether individuals residing in states that had not set up their own exchanges could claim health insurance subsidies.
According to the plain language of the law, they could not. Chief Justice John Roberts and five other justices disagreed.
The court’s decision Thursday stunned legal scholars.
Roberts “took the plain meaning of ordinary words, ‘established by the states,’ and somehow held that they were ambiguous, and that he could — and that the majority could — correct the ambiguity according to what they thought the drafters meant,” Fox News chief judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said of the court’s decision.
“The court is now in the business of saving a statute in order to save its reputation,” Napolitano added, paraphrasing Justice Antonin Scalia’s blistering dissenting opinion.
“We should start by calling this law SCOTUScare,” Scalia wrote.
If Babin’s proposal becomes law, it may indeed be called SCOTUScare.
Folks on social media were delighted:
— David Jack Smith (@davidjacksmith) June 25, 2015
@thehill How about the whole government be required to be covered by Obamacare!
— Linda Wilhelmi (@wilhelmi_linda) June 25, 2015
But in light of the legal gymnastics the court engaged in to arrive at its decision, one Twitter user predicted:
@thehill The Court will just interpret “shall enroll” to mean “shall not enroll.”
— Morality Is Freedom (@MoralsToFreedom) June 26, 2015
Latest posts by Michael Dorstewitz (see all)
- ‘Act like a grownup’: Drunk driver sobs when she loses plea deal by coming 4 hours late to court - July 23, 2017
- ‘I would’ve fired her the day I met her’: Glenn Beck reveals more about Tomi Lahren mess - July 23, 2017
- Canadian thug beats 74-year-old cyclist bloody with a club in road rage fit– and they say US is more violent? - July 23, 2017