The job of the U.S. Supreme Court is to apply the law to a set of given facts to the best of the judges’ abilities. These rulings are bound to strike a chord with at least one group of people, and in big cases, the Supreme Court is bound to make some people unhappy no matter what it decides.
But to what extent should the Supreme Court make a decision about a case based solely on fact? When does the actual experience of the people who will be affected by the decision come into play, if at all? The New York Times posed this question to readers in their “Room for Debate” section Tuesday.
Back in November 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would challenge the Affordable Care Act, potentially canceling out benefits for millions of people. This challenge comes two years after Obamacare, as the Act is often dubbed, was passed in the Supreme Court by just one vote.
The case, likely to be heard in February or March, deals with the tax subsidies that make the insurance affordable for millions of people. Challengers of the subsidies told the Times on Nov. 7, 2014 that 36 states are guilty of providing these subsidies unlawfully.
The controversy surrounding the subsidies arises from the central question in the case, which is what to make of a provision in the law limiting subsidies to “an exchange established by the state.”
If states do not establish their own exchanges, the federal government runs them. Those in opposition claim that due to the provision, only people living in states with exchanges can get subsidies. However, when the Internal Revenue Service issued a regulation saying that subsidies are allowed no matter which governing body the exchange is run by, challengers were quick to point out the conflict between the provision and the law.
“This lawsuit reflects just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act and to strip millions of American families of tax credits that Congress intended for them to have,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said in a statement to the Times. “We are confident that the financial help afforded millions of Americans was the intent of the law and it is working as Congress designed.”
If the challengers are right and the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, people receiving insurance in those states would have their plans canceled.
Clearly, this poses a problem. When the law first came to the court in 2012, justices upheld its constitutionality, and since then, millions of people have built their lives around their Obamacare health plans. Had the Supreme Court struck the law down in 2012, their decision would not have upended the lives of all these people. Now, it’s a different story, and it is not to be taken lightly.
The line between using constitutional rule of law and taking peoples’ real experiences under these laws into account is extremely complicated, especially in the case of the Affordable Care Act. Of course, it’s the Supreme Court’s job to ensure that all laws are constitutional, but as time goes by, the constitution is not necessarily as flexible and able to deal with real-world problems. These laws were written over 200 years ago, at a time when healthcare was dividing the nation. We need to recognize that times have changed.
The conversation about whether or not the constitution is still totally relevant is something that has been going on for years. The Supreme Court can look at whether something is constitutional or not all day, but whether or not the constitution is outdated should be the real question.
It’s hard to make a decision solely based on how people are feeling and what’s going on. The courts aren’t chosen by the public for a reason: the courts are not supposed to be bound by public opinion. But a broad and liberal reading of the constitution is necessary, especially in cases like this.
