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 »
PICTURE IS CLOUDIER ON OBSTRUCTION
Mueller: No Evidence of Collusion
15 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr. The summary also said that the special counsel’s team lacked sufficient evidence to establish that President Trump illegally obstructed justice, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump." Read Barr's summary here.

Source:
MUELLER "DOES NOT EXONERATE" TRUMP OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FINDS NO CONCRETE COLLUSION
Barr Releases Mueller Summary Letter to Congrees
16 hours ago
THE LATEST
BARR MAY BRIEF CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS THIS WEEKEND
Mueller Reports
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has delivered a report on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William P. Barr ... Barr told congressional leaders in a letter late Friday that he may brief them within days on the special counsel’s findings. 'I may be in a position to advise you of the special counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend,' he wrote in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Judiciary committees. It is up to Mr. Barr how much of the report to share with Congress and, by extension, the American public. The House voted unanimously in March on a nonbinding resolution to make public the report’s findings, an indication of the deep support within both parties to air whatever evidence prosecutors uncovered."

×
×

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