The Supreme Court is now hearing arguments in King v. Burwell -- the meritless case that nonetheless compelled four Justices to accept it for hearing.
The WSJ has a live blog of the argument.
The most significant comment came from Justice Kennedy -- a critical vote:
Justice Kennedy says he sees “a serious constitutional problem” in the idea Congress would force states to set up exchanges or risk their residents losing tax credits. The suggestion could spell trouble for the challengers. In the prior health-care ruling, the court said Congress can’t put excessive financial pressure on states to do certain things.
(Emphasis added.)
He means Medicaid Expansion and for some, the individual mandate. The comment shows some sign that Kennedy might apply consistency from prior decisions to a current case. Something ignored by some Court members recently.
Notorious RBG grilled the King lawyer about standing. (There was some question about whether this would be raised.) The lawyer, Carvin, said something about a veteran plaintiff not serving for long enough to get VA benefits, but then said Mr. Carvin said that "even if Mr. Hurst had qualified for VA care, he would not have been “eligible” for it unless he actively enrolled, and therefore he could still obtain the tax credits under the health law."
So even if he could have gotten VA Care, because he chose not to he was "injured?" Is he kidding?
Continued in comments: