Republicans erupted in outrage after yesterday’s Supreme Court’s King v Burwell decision on ObamaCare, but some acknowledged that it let them off the hook for having to fix the ACA that they want to entirely repeal. Still, not all Republicans are grateful for the reprieve — or perhaps some are just so grateful that they want to repay the court in kind. Hence, Congress will shortly consider a bill requiring the Supreme Court and its staff to share in the glorious beneficence of ObamaCare:
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.
“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.
“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.
Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.
“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.
All right, so Babin’s not acting out of beneficence. As rebukes go, it’s not as clear-cut as the effort to get the local jurisdiction to seize former Justice David Souter’s house through eminent domain after Kelo, but it could be more entertaining.
It’s clearly an attempt to remind the nine justices that their rulings have consequences, even when Congress has few avenues of response. This might be the only way of delivering a rebuke short of impeachment, and it might make for a few amusing moments along the way. Would Democrats in Congress argue against their own creation? If it passed, would Barack Obama veto it as an abuse of power? The opportunities for hypocrisy and irony are nearly endless, my friends.
However, it probably won’t last long. For one thing, Republicans still plan to repeal the ACA, and will probably not want to get too caught up in sideshows now that they have been freed from having to fix the already-dysfunctional system. Budgets will now occupy most of their time, along with legislative efforts to deal with the fallout from the Obergefell decision, which is much more pressing than directing a legislative slap at the six justices that assumed legislative powers to sustain the system. Arguably, anyway.