Please login or sign up to post and edit reviews.
SCOTUS Likely to Keep Obamacare Intact
Podcast |
Cases and Controversies
Publisher |
Bloomberg Law
Media Type |
audio
Podknife tags |
Government & Organizations, 
Law, 
Supreme Court, 
USA
Categories Via RSS |
Government, 
News, 
News Commentary
Publication Date |
Nov 13, 2020
Episode Duration |
00:28:22
The justices wrapped up their remote November sitting with one of the most anticipated cases before the justices this term—the challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Akin Gump’s Pratik A. Shah joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to game out the likely outcomes that include the justices leaving most of the law intact. The case, California v. Texas, derives from a 2017 amendment to the landmark law known as Obamacare that zeroed out the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance, known as the individual mandate. GOP-led states and the federal government say the mandate was so integral to Obamacare that the rest of the law can’t stand without it. Shah, who filed an amicus brief in the case, explains why that’s unlikely to happen and why eyes should be on Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.
The justices wrapped up their remote November sitting with one of the most anticipated cases before the justices this term—the challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Akin Gump’s Pratik A. Shah joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to game out the likely outcomes that include the justices leaving most of the law intact. The case, California v. Texas, derives from a 2017 amendment to the landmark law known as Obamacare that zeroed out the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance, known as the individual mandate. GOP-led states and the federal government say the mandate was so integral to Obamacare that the rest of the law can’t stand without it. Shah, who filed an amicus brief in the case, explains why that’s unlikely to happen and why eyes should be on Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

The justices wrapped up their remote November sitting with one of the most anticipated cases before the justices this term—the challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

Akin Gump’s Pratik A. Shah joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to game out the likely outcomes that include the justices leaving most of the law intact.

The case, 840.html&data=04%7C01%7CdSchultz%40bloombergindustry.com%7Cc340d46b461944e5ca8f08d888275ce1%7C97be21fdc6014b169920f5accc69da65%7C0%7C0%7C637409049922991095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=FFYulbdvzs3gUZ2yBOQAvr%2F2Ug%2B1EZQanVwk5fKDDt4%3D&reserved=0">California v. Texas, derives from a 2017 amendment to the landmark law known as Obamacare that zeroed out the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance, known as the individual mandate.

GOP-led states and the federal government say the mandate was so integral to Obamacare that the rest of the law can’t stand without it. Shah, who filed an amicus brief in the case, explains why that’s unlikely to happen and why eyes should be on Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

This episode currently has no reviews.

Submit Review
This episode could use a review!

This episode could use a review! Have anything to say about it? Share your thoughts using the button below.

Submit Review