Antonin Scalia: Won’t Congress Fix Obamacare?

The conservative firebrand said Congress would probably act if the Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare’s subsidies.

Scalia Time? The justice calls Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a "racial entitlement."  (The Higgs Boson Photostream/Creative Commons. Photo/Stephen Masker)
National Journal
March 4, 2015, 9:40 a.m.

Su­preme Court Justice Ant­on­in Scalia seems to have faith that Con­gress would fix Obama­care if the Court weak­ens it — but not so much faith in the Con­gress that wrote the law in the first place.

So­li­cit­or Gen­er­al Don­ald Ver­rilli, ar­guing on be­half of the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, warned the Court dur­ing or­al ar­gu­ments in King v. Bur­well on Wed­nes­day that a rul­ing in­val­id­at­ing Obama­care’s in­sur­ance sub­sidies in most of the coun­try would have dis­astrous con­sequences. Premi­ums would skyrock­et, mil­lions of people would lose their cov­er­age, and many states’ in­di­vidu­al in­sur­ance mar­kets could des­cend in­to chaos, he said.

But Scalia wasn’t sure it would be that bad.

“What about Con­gress? You really think Con­gress is just go­ing to sit there while ­­all of these dis­astrous con­sequences en­sue?” he asked Ver­rilli. “I mean, how of­ten have we come out with a de­cision “¦ [and] Con­gress ad­justs — en­acts a stat­ute that ­­takes care of the prob­lem? It hap­pens all the time. Why is that not go­ing to hap­pen here?”

“This Con­gress, your hon­or?” Ver­rilli replied. “Of course, the­or­et­ic­ally, they could.”

Seated just a few feet away were many of the con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tee chair­men who would have to come up with and pass such a fix, in­clud­ing Sens. Or­rin Hatch and Lamar Al­ex­an­der; and Reps. Paul Ry­an and Fred Up­ton.

Re­pub­lic­ans have worked hard lately to con­vince the pub­lic — and the Court — that they’ll be ready with a fix if the justices do in­val­id­ate Obama­care’s sub­sidies.

Policy ex­perts largely agree that such a rul­ing would cause the kind of dis­rup­tion Ver­rilli de­scribed, and some con­ser­vat­ives are afraid that the Court wouldn’t be will­ing to take that risk un­less it be­lieved Con­gress would step in. Ry­an and Hatch have both pub­lished op-eds re­cently say­ing they would pro­pose a tem­por­ary patch al­low­ing people to keep their cov­er­age, per­haps even with a tem­por­ary ex­ten­sion of Obama­care’s sub­sidies.

But the de­tails of those plans are un­clear — as is the polit­ic­al strategy for get­ting Re­pub­lic­ans to agree on and pass an Obama­care “fix” that Obama could also swal­low, po­ten­tially in­clud­ing an ex­ten­sion of its most ex­pens­ive pro­vi­sion, in the middle of a pres­id­en­tial primary.

Still, Scalia seemed op­tim­ist­ic.

“I don’t care what Con­gress you’re talk­ing about,” he said in re­sponse to Ver­rilli. “If the con­sequences are as dis­astrous as you say, so many … people without ­­in­sur­ance and what­not, yes, I think this Con­gress would act.”

But his con­fid­ence in the Con­gress that passed Obama­care isn’t quite as strong.

Ver­rilli ar­gued Wed­nes­day that Con­gress could not have in­ten­ded to lim­it the law’s in­sur­ance sub­sidies to people in states that set up their own ex­changes. Maybe Con­gress just wasn’t very good at ex­press­ing its in­tent, Scalia replied.

“This is not the most el­eg­antly draf­ted stat­ute,” he said. “It was ­pushed through on ex­ped­ited pro­ced­ures and didn’t have the kind of con­sid­er­a­tion by a con­fer­ence com­mit­tee, for ex­ample, that ­­stat­utes usu­ally do. What­­ would be so sur­pris­ing if, among its oth­er im­per­fec­tions, there is the im­per­fec­tion that what the states have to do is not ­ob­vi­ous enough? It doesn’t strike me as in­con­ceiv­able.”

The hand­ful of con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats in at­tend­ance — House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Dick Durbin, Patty Mur­ray, and Ron Wyden — had no vis­ible re­ac­tion to the diss.

What We're Following See More »
BY 180 DAYS
Trump Delays Tariffs on Japanese and European Cars
2 days ago
THE LATEST
WOULD PRIORITIZE SKILLS OVER FAMILY TIES
Trump Unveils New Immigration Proposal
3 days ago
THE LATEST
HE WILL SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW IN MID-JUNE
Trump Jr. Agrees to Testify in the Senate
5 days ago
THE DETAILS

"Donald Trump Jr. has struck a last minute deal to comply with a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee ... Trump Jr. will sit for an interview some time in mid-June for between two and four hours, with the scope limited to five or six topics pertaining to his communications with Russian officials. This will be the last time Trump Jr. has to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to the terms of the deal."

Source:
STOCKS, DOLLAR FALL IN RESPONSE
China Hits Back with Tariffs on $60B in U.S. Goods
6 days ago
THE LATEST
IN RETALIATION
China Raising Tariffs
6 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login