King v. Burwell and Obamacare

If you’re at all concerned with the possibility that the Supreme Court may shortly deprive tens of thousands of people of their (recently-acquired) federally-subsidized health insurance, you should look at this post by Timothy Jost on Balkinization, detailing the contents of the amicus briefs that put the anti-Obamacare forces (I think) to shame. And then look at this Wall Street Journal story, and this one, and this amazing piece from Mother Jones, about the four “plaintiffs” in the case, who have little to no idea of the position “their” lawyers are taking on their behalf, and in at least one case don’t seem to even know that they’re plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s legal theory is pathetic, the lawyer’s supposed named plaintiffs are frauds–and yet it’s actually possible that the Supreme Court might endorse the theory to protect those plaintiffs.

John Roberts can work as hard as he wants to protect the reputation of the Supreme Court as non-political, but if they decide against the US on this one, they will have no credibility left at all.  

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.