/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66085862/GettyImages_478453014.0.jpg)
"Trump Administration wants the Supreme Court not to rule on Obamacare until after the 2020 election" by Katelyn Burns, Vox
Texas v. United States is the name of the case that's challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (on a confoundingly trivial and pointless basis, in my opinion), and it's currently being appealed to the Supreme Court. What confused me was that Democrats wanted the Supreme Court to hear the case earlier, while the Republicans wanted this to be done after the 2020 elections. Why would the Democrats push for a case that could potentially nullify the Affordable Care Act, and conversely, why would Republicans want to delay this case? The answer, of course, lies in the context of the 2020 elections.
There are certain provisions in the ACA that are overwhelmingly popular, such as one that "lowers the costs of prescription drugs for those on Medicare" and one that prevents "insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions" (Burns). The Democratic Party's strategy goes as so: if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the ACA, then Democrats can claim to be the party that saved healthcare; if the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA, then Democrats can blame Republicans for ruining healthcare. Republican congresspeople don't want this lose-lose case to affect their elections, which is why they want to postpone it.
This example illustrates how the judiciary is a legal and political institution. The "legal" portion involves the judicial review of the Affordable Care Act. We learned in class that which cases the Supreme Court takes is highly political. It turns out, the timing of a case, because it can affect elections, is another political factor.
This post leads me to one more conclusion about the judiciary: it's not truly independent. It's true that life terms and the power of judicial review sequester the branch, but the plethora of political influences make it so that the judiciary is not so isolated from partisan politics as we might want it to be.
1 comment:
I totally agree with Jossie on this one. I think that there has been a noble attempt at isolating the judiciary, but is ultimately close to impossible because of things like timing of case reviews, as we see here. I personally think that the delay of the case is vile in that so many people in the US need healthcare and the benefits provided by the ACA, and politicians are more worried about how it will make them look during the election. Is pushing back the case a reflection of the lack of morality and care in US politics? Or is the election really that important? How do you feel about politician's desire to appeal to the public?
Post a Comment