GOP Bill Would Ban Supreme Court From Citing Its Own Obamacare Cases

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011, after accepting delivery of signed petitions demanding the repeal of 'ObamaCare' . (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) hates Obamacare so much that he doesn’t even want the Supreme Court to cite its own major Obamacare cases in future opinions, according to a bill he introduced Tuesday.

The bill itself list the names of major lawsuits the Affordable Care Act has faced at the Supreme Court and bars them “from citation for the purpose of precedence in all future cases.”

“It was my first order of business on the morning after ObamaCare passed into law, March 24, 2010, to draft and introduce my full, 100% repeal of ObamaCare,” King said in a press release announcing the legislation. “By prohibiting the Supreme Court from citing ObamaCare cases, we will be truly eradicating this unconstitutional policy from all three branches of government so that the repeal will be complete.”

The bill claims that “Under Article 3, Section 2” Congress is allowed to “to provide exceptions and regulations for Supreme Court consideration of cases and controversies.”

The proposal had the health care law world “chuckling,” according to Timothy Jost, a health law specialist at the Washington and Lee University.

“He obviously hasn’t read these opinions,” Jost said. He pointed to National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, which Jost said “contained very strong statements about state rights;” King v. Burwell, which “included language in which the court basically limited deference to administrative agencies;” and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which “was all about religious liberty.”

“These are three precedents that one would think Representative King would affirm very strongly,” Jost said.

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. First day of work for our new Congress …

    If today was but a taste … ?

    I’ve already ordered a case…

  2. This didn’t work when the Supreme Court tried to ban any legal reference to their anointing of the twit in 2000 so why would any sane individual ( of King is not) thinks it will work now?

  3. Avatar for sandyh sandyh says:

    If Ryan continues to let the Freedumb Caucus to gut the power of the Judiciary, even Alito might rebel? Who needs a Supreme Court when you have state judges that can be bribed a lot easier?

  4. something soothing to wash it down with… 98.6° :cocktail:

  5. Avatar for ghost ghost says:

    No problem with separation of powers here, nope, none at all.

    Good lord (or FSM), Steve King is an idiot.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

134 more replies

Participants

Avatar for ghost Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for silas1898 Avatar for clunkertruck Avatar for jep07 Avatar for avattoir Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for thunderhawk Avatar for voreason Avatar for boscobrown Avatar for borisjimbo Avatar for jcblues Avatar for bd2999 Avatar for ronbyers Avatar for dddinah Avatar for darrtown Avatar for tena Avatar for sgtrock Avatar for pmaroneyb Avatar for matthew_tanner Avatar for edhedh Avatar for codger Avatar for overthefall96 Avatar for clare

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: