an unanticipated consequence of
Jack M. Balkin
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at princeton.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Yes, as I argued on this blog a number of months ago, the federalism/opt-out portion of the ACA/Sibelius decision is having a disproportionate impact on African Americans and the poor. Given the prior known pattern of Medicaid reimbursement rates, this was foreseeable by the Court. I hope everyone saw this NYT article today. Posted
by Stephen Griffin [link]
Since the entry by Gerard N. Magliocca doesn't seem to allow comments, I'll do so here. His argument about settled law seems ridiculous. By those standards, the constitutionality of Medicare isn't "settled" either because so many republicans want to eliminate that program as well.
GP, I think you'll find that a much higher percentage of Republicans want to abolish the ACA than Medicare. Despite any liberal mythology to the contrary.
Personally, I find the concept of 'settled law' rather useless. It's only purpose seems to be to cast a pall of illegitimacy over perfectly legal efforts to change the legal status quo in certain areas.
"mls said...So what happens if someone overstates their income in order to qualify for benefits? Is the federal government going to sue them for back taxes?"
The HHS has rewritten the reporting provisions of the statute and will accept all income reporting at face value. This regime is encouraging fraud in order to maximize the number of new government dependents.
Magliocca doesn't seem to allow comments, I'll do so here. His argument about settled law seems ridiculous. By those standards, the constitutionality of Medicare isn't "settled" either because so many republicans want to eliminate that program as well.fifa 15 coins英雄联盟代练Elo Boost