But thus broadening the stakes in these lawsuits is a mistake. The better—and accurate—tack is that opponents’ route to interpreting federal exchanges into self-immolation is so hyper-blinkered that it flouts bedrock axioms common to all legitimate interpretational theologies.
You are here
The Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — has endured so many near-death experiences that digging into the details of still another effort to demolish it is admittedly not an inviting prospect. (My own reaction, I confess, to hearing some months back about the latest legal challenge — this one aimed at the supposed effect of a single word in the 900-page statute — was something along the lines of “wake me when it’s over.”)
Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — Judges Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook, and Martha Craig Daughtrey — heard oral arguments in cases from four states (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) in which lower court judges have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage and bans on the recognition of same-sex marriages legally entered into elsewhere.
CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra appeared in this piece by correspondent Shannon Bream discussing the politics of Supreme Court appointments, on FOX News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier.
CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra appeared on the Bill Press Show to discuss the challenges to the Affordable Care Act, Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell.
CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra appeared in this piece by correspondent Shannon Bream discussing the future of marriage equality in the courts, on FOX News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier.
"The ACA challengers are trying to delegitimize the D.C. Circuit rehearing because they realize their best chance to win is at the Supreme Court. They know that if the D.C. Circuit grants hearing en banc that'll vacate the decision and there'll no longer be a split," said Brianne Gorod, appellate counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed a legal brief on behalf of Obamacare for Democrats. "At that point if the Supreme Court grants review it would go against their normal practice."
According to the Constitutional Accountability Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank, the right to vote is the single right that appears most often in the Constitution. Five times in all, in four Amendments, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th. And it is protected by powerful language like this: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . .”
Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost and Simon Lazarus explained in May why the president's move to postpone the implementation of the employer mandate (ie, the requirement that businesses with 50 or more employees provide approved health plans) is not exactly tyrannical.
Fortunately, Virginia's "traditional" view of marriage has been consigned to the dustbin of history. I'm confident that when all is said and done on the issue of marriage equality for gay men and lesbians, that's where we'll find Virginia's current laws as well. As the majority recognized in Bostic, the Fourteenth Amendment requires no less.
“In a normal case, the Supreme Court would give the D.C. Circuit a chance to resolve the split,” said Brianne Gorod of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. “When the full D.C. Circuit decides the case, there probably won’t be a split, and then there will be no reason for the Supreme Court to get involved.”
During testimony before a House panel examining the claims, Simon Lazarus, senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, said the notion that the president’s executive actions delaying the law’s enforcement amounts to an unconstitutional refusal to enforce a law is “ludicrous.” “The president has authorized a minor temporary course correction,” Lazarus said. “As a legal as well as a practical matter, that’s well within his job description.”