John Roberts took live-saving insurance away from people based on an argument he didn’t believe to inflict political damage on Barack Obama
The Medicaid expansion was a BFD:
The ACA's Medicaid expansion saved a lot of lives. https://t.co/vYjuF3ntIZ pic.twitter.com/TRHwZxnYXY— Samuel Hammond 🌐🏛 (@hamandcheese) November 16, 2021
It seems very bad, to me, that the Supreme Court re-wrote the revisions of a program that had already been revised many times to make it much easier for states not to take the expansion, based on a nonsensical application of a doctrine that has not been used to restrict federal spending before or since. And what’s even worse is that the swing vote heard these arguments (perfunctory throwaways that were an afterthought even for the Federalist Society Industrial Complex) at oral argument and rejected them, but decided to revive them in the name of the real doctrine behind his decision, “we must do something to damage OBAMACARE and this is something.”
This is a ridiculous way for an alleged judicial body to proceed in any context, let alone a literal life-or-death one. But because he didn’t accept the most extreme form of the anti-ACA argument Roberts will never get more than a tiny fraction of the criticism he deserves for have done this.