LogFAQs > #955131275

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	SCOTUS confirms ACA 7-2
realnifty1 06/17/21 1:01:46 PM #39:	Worth noting that this was just a ruling on standing not the merits. I'm fairly certain the 2017 Republican law to reduce the penalty to $0 is in fact unconstitutional. The only issue with that is that if it is found unconstitutional then the 2017 law would be rolled back, not the ACA. And I don't think anyone wants to be responsible for re-instating the penalty. <cite>realnifty1 posted [p:955131275] in SCOTUS con... [t:79518784]...</cite> <quote>Worth noting that this was just a ruling on standing not the merits. I'm fairly certain the 2017 Republican law to reduce the penalty to $0 is in fact unconstitutional. The only issue with that is that if it is found unconstitutional then the 2017 law would be rolled back, not the ACA. And I don't think anyone wants to be responsible for re-instating the penalty. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1