• 2014 is not a virtue

    About the timing of the SCOTUS’s potential decision on the mandate and/or the ACA entire, Keven Drum writes,

    This is all still a couple of years away, since it still has to go through the appellate courts and I assume the earliest the Supreme Court could take it up would be in its 2012-13 session, with a decision handed down sometime in 2013. So we have plenty of time to think about it.

    The brilliant legislative logicians that dreamed up (or forced) a 2014 start date for the exchanges, Medicaid expansion, many of the health insurance market reforms, and, yes, the mandate, will be very nervous. Could they have made it much harder for the court to rule against the law?

    Had the implementation been one to two years sooner, a nullification of the law, or part thereof, would be dramatically more disruptive. The pressure would be enormous for something to be done to prevent that possibility. I gather 2014 was a budgetary necessity. How much harder would it have been to buy another year or year and a half? Was that completely out of the question?

    Similarly, is there any means by which this could be delayed in making its way to the SCOTUS? A matter of six months could make a huge difference. No doubt some top-notch legal minds are thinking about this.

    Share
    Comments closed
     
    • Since the implementation of the law itself will be “dramatically disruptive,” I presume that if the appeals court sides with Hudson and Vinson, a stay will be granted to prevent implementation.

      Also, please don’t pretend the 2014 date was any kind of “budgetary necessity.” We all know that the only reason it didn’t kick in right away was to manipulate the CBO ten-year scoring. It was a budgetary gimmick, not a budgetary necessity.

    • The states also could potentially invoke Original Jurisdiction and proceed directly to SCOTUS.

    • I’m not sure why you feel that it would have been dramatically more disruptive to have nullification of the implementation a few years earlier. It would seem to me that it would be more disruptive to have nullification in 2014 after everyone has been planning and working on implementation for a few years.

      • @Mark Spohr – Eh? Think you misread or I didn’t say right. Nullification after implementation is more disruptive. Hence, implementation in 2014 and not, say, 2012 was a poor choice.

    • “Had the implementation been one to two years sooner, a nullification of the law, or part thereof, would be dramatically more disruptive. ”
      This seems to say (to me) that an earlier nullification would be more disruptive so you might want to clarify.