The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next week on lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare).
Your typical right-winger thinks the ACA is unconstitutional on its face. But, of course, your typical right-winger also is notoriously ignorant of the court precedents on issues likely to come into play in this case.
Moreover, your typical right-winger is utterly unaware of the far-reaching consequences that could result from a broad ruling against the ACA. The aftermath could be chaotic, to put it mildly, as all manner of laws and programs are subsequently seen as failing to meet the standards of constitutionality established by the high court’s wholesale rejection of ObamaCare.
Before you make what you think is an educated prediction of how the Supremes will rule, you might want to check out THIS PIECE by Jonathan Cohn, which only scratches the surface of potential consequences:
Rejecting the Affordable Care Act could deprive 30 million people of health insurance, weaken the coverage for tens of millions more, and alter one-sixth of the economy. In those respects, obviously, it would be a highly consequential decision. But such a ruling could also have have far-reaching legal effects… At least in theory, the court could use this case to redefine the boundaries of federal power, in a way that the courts have not done in nearly a century.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, Jonathan Chait ARGUES that some conservative opponents of ObamaCare don’t want to be bothered by facts:
[H]ostility to empiricism has defined the conservative approach to health care. How else could a concept developed by a conservative think tank, implemented by a Republican governor, and largely uncontroversial within the conservative world suddenly become the death of freedom? Because the conservative movement’s understanding of concepts like “freedom” is a hazy ideological abstraction, unmoored from factual grounding, that can attach itself to nearly any partisan position. If you’re uninterested in the details (or even, like [Bill] Kristol, actively hostile to the very idea of being interested in the details) then your disposition toward one idea can easily lurch from mildly supportive to hysterically in opposition.