SCOTUS AND US

Two cases, one that will be decided by SCOTUS as I write this and the other which SCOTUS has agreed to hear in its 2016 session have the potential to have an earthshaking impact on our political health as well as economic life.

The first one depends on the interpretation of the meaning of four little words; “established by the state”.

Those words in the ACA act relating to the graduated tax subsidies available to those insured “through an exchange established by the state.” will be the key to whether residents of purchased health insurance through the exchanges in the 38 states including New Jersey that opted not to establish their own exchanges but rely on Federally run ones for their State will be eligible for the subsidies.

If SCOTUS rules that this wording limits such subsidies to State sponsored exchanges it would probably in effect make health insurance unfordable for the masses for whom the law was designed to cover.

Already for the third year of the plan in mine states the premiums increases requested have been from 15% to over 40%. Insurance companies are now getting a handle on the actual usage and costs of providing coverage and still making a profit.

Conversations with the actual drafters of the plan that was accepted by Congress have agreed that this key phrase from an earlier draft was overlooked and not eliminated.

However the law is as it is written and passed by Congress and signed by the President. SCOTUS will have to decide if hearsay intent overrides the actual words. What could be the impact on challenges based on perceived intent versus the actual wording to other laws if SCOTUS rules that residents fall states that have established exchanges, Federal or State sponsored, are eligible for subsidies?

A ruling that the law is specific in its wording would in effect be destructive to the ACA.

The other case to be heard during SCOTUS’s next session is a suit by two Texans against that State’s determination of congressional and other “voting districts”.

The key is the meaning of “one person, one vote” The rule that, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, legislative voting districts must be the same in population size. The idea behind the rule is that one person's voting power ought to be roughly equivalent to another person's within the state. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

However, the challenge has been that “one person, one vote” population is meant to mean the number of eligible or registered voters in an area not the total population which includes non-citizens and even illegals.

The question is do only citizens or all tax payers have the right to determine the functions of government? Think about that. My feeling is that a citizen of “Bongabonga” (a fictional country) even if living here and paying taxes should not have the ability by numbers to determine our laws.

A ruling to the effect that only those who have the capability of voting would cause drastic changes in determining Congressional as well as state and eve local voting districts. No longer would large urban areas have an advantage over suburban and rural populations.

The net result could be the end of the gerrymandering of voting districts that are aimed to make safe for one party. At the least it could reduce the power of the cities over rural areas.