"Piece after piece after piece of evidence that they have put forward to try to support their far-fetched interpretation of the statute has fallen apart as we approach oral argument," says Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel at the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. "That's legally relevant, because it demolishes their claim that anyone thought the law works this way at the time."
CAC In the News
At the end of the day, what matters is not what President Obama said about the legality of his action; what matters is what the laws and precedents say, and they make clear that his action was lawful. When the Fifth Circuit reviews this week’s immigration decision on appeal, it should vindicate the views of the legal advisors who approved this action, and not the political advisors who presumably told him to say they wouldn’t.
An upside-Pinocchio is awarded for an unacknowledged flip-flop on an issue. Ryan, Barrasso and Cornyn appear to qualify. They should simply acknowledge that their understanding of the law has changed, rather than pretend that they knew all along that people living in states on the federal exchange would not qualify for premium subsidies.
"The Supreme Court’s docket in recent terms looks a lot like an outline for a stump speech for a 2016 [presidential] candidate. Immigration, check. Climate, check. Health care, check," Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said in an e-mail. "The court is deciding just about every major question that divides Americans along ideological lines."
"These guys are sort of becoming part of pop culture," says Doug Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. "They do have, at this point, enormous influence on the court's jurisprudence and the court as an institution, and their legacy is still being made."