I doubt it–if the Dems take the Senate.
I've been arguing here since the Barrett nomination that if the Dems win the Senate, they should expand the court. If Barrett and the other conservative ideologues vote to destroy the ACA, it will all but insure that the court will be expanded as the first order of business in January. So it won't. The Republican court majority realizes that if it blows up the ACA, it will be so outrageous to a Senate Democratic majority that those senators sitting on the fence will be given the political cover they need to support expanding the court.
Roberts doesn't want that because it would be suicidal to the conservative majority he now enjoys. He won't risk giving up something so important to him for something so trivial. He'll lean on Kavanaugh or Barrett (or have them all draw lots?) to vote with him and the three liberals to uphold the ACA.
So a part of me thinks it wouldn't be such a bad thing if the court nullifies the ACA precisely because it will almost certainly insure expanding the court. Losing the ACA will be disruptive and a hardship for many in the short run. But a Dem House and Senate will be able relatively quickly (absent the filibuster) to come up with something to fix the health care problem–maybe even something superior like Medicare for All. And so there's an argument to be made that the cost in the short run of losing the ACA might justify in the long run the benefit of politically neutralizing the court and getting a better, simpler, more effective health care plan, the one we should have got in 2009 instead of this Rube Goldberg monstrosity.
Iif the GOP holds on to the Senate, I'm less certain. But it's still unlikely the court will nullify the ACA:
From everything I've read, the merits of Texas v. The United States are ridiculously weak and would have got nowhere if it weren't for Republican hacks on a Texas district court and on the southern federal 5th District court of appeals. The supreme court has its Republican hacks, but they are not all so stupid as to be so disruptive to tear down the whole ACA on such a flimsy pretext. If they do anything, it will be more surgical to deal with ambiguities that still linger concerning individual mandate, and nobody cares about the individual mandate anymore.
I think that the bigger threat that Barrett's further unbalancing the court poses is on voting rights and election law. God help us if the presidential is so close as to require the court to step in as it did in 2000.
Leave a Reply