Blog

In this interrupted colloquy with Justice Sotomayor, General Verrilli could not get out more than 2 or 3 words at a time. This is one of the longer cross-talks I’ve seen.

Anyone who checks a box on HealthCare.gov will now be able to sign up for Obamacare after March 31.

Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension.

Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

The rules, which will apply to the federal exchanges operating in three dozen states, will essentially create a large loophole even as White House officials have repeatedly said that the March 31 deadline was firm. The extra time will not technically alter the deadline but will create a broad new category of people eligible for what’s known as a special enrollment period.

The “honor system.” And how long will this last? They’ll let us know.

The extra time will not be restricted, though, to people who wait until the last minute to try to sign up. Although no one will be asked why they need an extension, the idea is to help people whose applications have gotten held up because of the Web site’s technical problems — or who haven’t been able to get the system to calculate subsidies to help them pay for coverage.

According to a Health and Human Services official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about decisions that have not been made public, an exact time frame for this extension has not been set, and depends in part on how many people request it. Nor have officials decided precisely how long people will have to select a health plan after they get the extra time.

How is this going to work when filling out tax returns? Will you write that you are not subject to the tax/penalty because of the check box?

I can’t even do this anymore. Seriously.

In Hobby Lobby, the Solicitor General led off with a quotation by Justice Jackson from Prince v. Massachusetts.

The touchstone for resolving this case is the principle Justice Jackson articulated in Prince v. Massachusetts. As he said, “Limitations which of necessity bound religious freedom begin to operate whenever activities begin to affect or collide with the liberties of others or of the public. Adherence to that principle is what makes possible the harmonious functioning of a society like ours, in which people of every faith live and work side by side.”

That’s pretty close, but not exactly right.

Our basic difference seems to be as to the method of establishing limitations which of necessity bound religious freedom. My own view may be shortly put: I think the limits begin to operate whenever activities begin to affect or collide with liberties of others or of the public.

So the second sentence was Verrilli’s not Jackson’s.  And he eliminated a few words in the middle.

Verrilli has a fantastic memory. You’ll recall that during NFIB v. Sebelius (Day 2), he choked after water went down the wrong pipe. Yet he managed to resume his opening statement, verbatim, as he had before he took a pause.

Throughout the entire duration that the Affordable Care Act was being foisted on Congress, it’s key provisions were always dubbed mandates–there was the individual mandate, the employer mandate, and later the contraceptive mandate. Yet, you wouldn’t know it if you listened to how the Supreme Court views the law. With the individual mandate, the Chief Justice found that that there is no mandate! Now, with the employer mandate, we see a similar argument. There is no mandate. Just a choice!

As articulated by Justice Kagan:

JUSTICE KAGAN: But Mr. Clement, it’s not saying you must do something that violates your religion. It’s giving you a choice. You can do this thing or if this thing violates your religion you can do another thing. And that other thing is approximately the same price as the thing that you don’t want to do.

Kennedy echoed the essence of the Chief’s saving construction–if the cost of providing insurance is equivalent to the cost of the penalty, there is really no mandate.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But why ­­ why is that a problem? Let’s assume that the cost of providing insurance is roughly equivalent to the $2,000 penalty. How ­­ how is the employer hurt? He can just raise the wages. …

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Okay, the last is important. But just assume hypothetically that it’s a wash, that the employer would be in about the same position if he paid the penalty and the employer ­­ pardon me, an employee went out and got the insurance and that the employee’s wages were raised slightly and then it’s ­­ and that it’s a wash so far as the employer are concerned, other than the employer’s religious objection, but just on the financial standpoint. Can we assume that as a hypothetical. Then what would your case be?

There is no mandate. There is merely a monetary penalty for not doing something. And why not, let’s call it a tax! This is the future of governmental mandates. Just charge someone for not doing something the government wants.

And even Drudge picked up on it!

Here is the lede of the Drudge Report.