The job of the SC is strictly to judge the merits of the case. It does not make law nor does it make policy decisions that is up to congress. It's clear how the law was written and it's purpose. The SC will rule against it, and it'll be up to congress to fix it, not the SC.That argument kind of cuts both ways. Yes, the Supreme Court is bad at evaluating policy impacts. So, some people argue that means that it should just ignore policy impacts and rule purely on legal doctrine. But, that leads to a kind of a bizarre result where the Supreme Court is making massive policy decisions, like eliminating health coverage for about 8 million people, precisely because it is really bad at making those kinds of decisions. So, other people argue that the Supreme Court being bad at policy making means that it should try to steer away from making big changes to policy, which would mean preserving the subsidies.
That is exactly right, it's the job of congress to fix the problem, not the SC. And with a Republican congress they will kill Obamacare and start over and this time it will be a bipartisan healthcare bill. Not one that was jammed down the peoples throat and one that the Dems had to bride some of their own to pass this failed job killing, higher insurance cost monstrosity.You may not be clear about what is at issue in the case. There is no outcome that would mean nixing the entire ACA. What is at issue is only the federal subsidies for people in states that didn't set up exchanges. If the plaintiffs win completely, that would mean that the federal government could no longer pay the subsidies to people who got insurance through the federal exchange. So, basically, it would mean that poor people in red states would no longer be able to afford their insurance unless either the federal Republicans fixed it or their state legislatures fixed it.
Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
Obama's legacy - Total Failure