Brendan Nyhan/NY Times:
The report Monday that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state raises a number of important questions about government transparency and access to public records.
Unsurprisingly, however, the conversation quickly veered from matters of policy into ominous speculation about the political consequences for Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, including hyperbolic suggestions that the emails could “shake up the 2016 race,” cause irreparable damage to her, cause her to lose the general election, or even help force her out of the race.
The actual public response to the controversy is likely to be a combination of apathy and partisanship. Few Americans are paying attention to any aspect of the campaign at this point. Those who do notice will most likely divide largely along partisan lines, with Democrats interpreting her actions more charitably, especially once they see Republicans attacking Mrs. Clinton on the issue.
Oh. Benghazi Republicans think this is important. And Jeb Bush also used private emails for public business. Big yawn except for reporters who live for this. They missed the Clintons, it seems.
Margot Sanger-Katz/NY Times:
The case before the Supreme Court this week will not wipe Obamacare off the books.
Unlike the case the court considered in 2012, which could have erased the Affordable Care Act entirely, this one concerns the application of only one provision of the law, and only to certain states. A ruling for the plaintiffs in the case, King v. Burwell, would carry huge consequences in many states, but 15 million of the people estimated to get insurance under the law would still get it, according to an Urban Institute estimate.
The list of policy changes that would be untouched by any legal ruling is very long. The law’s Medicaid expansion, now covering more than nine million poor Americans, will endure. Regulations on health insurance, limiting insurers’ ability to impose lifetime caps on coverage or exclude customers who have pre-existing illnesses, will remain. Young adults will still be able to stay on their parents’ insurance until they reach 26.
Healthinsurance.org:
[Andrew] Sprung: So what is the final takeaway?
[Nicholas] Bagley: Two justices came in with question marks over their heads. I don’t think we learned much from either about how they’re thinking about the case. So, although it’s interesting and it sounds like the Court understands the case and is grappling with it seriously, I don’t know that we learned a great deal.
More politics and policy below the fold.
Margot Sanger-Katz again:
The Supreme Court has the potential to radically reshape the Affordable Care Act, creating a result profoundly different from that imagined by President Obama and the law’s drafters in Congress.
Three years ago, the court essentially limited the law’s ability to expand health insurance to low-income Americans in red states. A case it is considering on Wednesday might result in taking away insurance access for middle-income people, too.
Taken together, the two cases could lead to a sharp national division in access to health insurance, based on what state you live in. Instead of providing universal health insurance coverage to the country, the law would widen an existing rift in health care access.
Jason Millman:
Based on oral arguments this morning, the latest Supreme Court showdown over Obamacare could lead to another narrow ruling determining the fate of the health-care program. Here are five important takeaways from the hearing in King v. Burwell, a challenge an IRS rule providing financial assistance to millions purchasing health insurance through federal-run exchanges offered in states that did not create their own online marketplaces. (Read our guide for everything you need to know about up to this point.)
1. The vote will be close. The four justices from the court's liberal wing appear on board with the Obama administration's argument that all exchanges -- whether state or federal -- can offer subsidies. Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts are still potential swing votes. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito seem to sympathize with the plaintiffs' argument that the text of the Affordable Care Act only authorizes subsidies in state-run exchanges.
2. Kennedy's skepticism could be good for the Obama administration. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a possible swing vote in this case, voiced concern that allowing subsidies only on state exchanges, as the plaintiffs argue the law reads, could raise "serious constitutional problems." Such a requirement could be too coercive, he said, since a state's insurance market would be severely damaged if it didn't set up the exchange and therefore didn't have access to subsidies. That could show that Kennedy is more sympathetic to the federal government’s argument that all exchanges provide subsidies, so there wouldn’t be such a severe penalty to the states that refused to set up their own. On the other hand, Kennedy also expressed concern about giving too much leeway to a federal agency to interpret law if the statute isn't clear enough.
Jeffrey Toobin:
[Chief Justicve John] Roberts’s one question may turn out to be extremely important. The issue in the case is whether the Obama Administration, in implementing the Affordable Care Act, violated the terms of that law. The plaintiffs assert that the A.C.A. only authorizes subsidies for individuals who buy health insurance on the fourteen state-run exchanges, or marketplaces. Under their reading of the law, the eight million or so people in the other thirty-six states who currently buy their insurance from the federal marketplace should be denied their subsidies. Most of the justices’ questions dealt with the issue of how to read the law correctly, but Roberts, in his single substantive question, took a different tack.
Anthony Kennedy had asked about “Chevron deference,” a doctrine of law that describes how much leeway the executive branch should have in interpreting laws. Verrilli, not surprisingly, said that the Chevron doctrine gave the Obama Administration more than adequate permission to read the law to allow subsidies on the federal exchange. “If you’re right about Chevron,” Roberts said, at long last, “that would indicate that a subsequent Administration could change that interpretation?” Perhaps it could, Verrilli conceded.
The question suggests a route out of the case for Roberts—and the potential for a victory for the Obama Administration. Roberts came of age as a young lawyer in the Reagan Administration, and there he developed a keen appreciation for the breadth of executive power under the Constitution. To limit the Obama Administration in this case would be to threaten the power of all Presidents, which Roberts may be loath to do. But he could vote to uphold Obama’s action in this case with a reminder that a new election is fast approaching, and Obamacare is sure to be a major point of contention between the parties. A decision in favor of Obama here could be a statement that a new President could undo the current President’s interpretation of Obamacare as soon as he (or she) took office in 2017. In other words, the future of Obamacare should be up to the voters, not the justices.
I have no idea what they'll do, but it seems clear they'll do whatever the hell they want to do and figure out the legal justification afterwards.
CBS:
Looking back, nine in 10 Americans think the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was necessary, including overwhelming majorities regardless of race, political affiliation, age, and region of the country.
And most Americans still think the Voting Rights Act is necessary today, though the percentage is smaller -- 59 percent think the law is still necessary, while 35 percent do not.
The Hill:
The Senate failed on Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of legislation approving the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, falling five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed in a 62-37 vote.
It’s the first time Congress has voted on whether to override a veto from Obama and could be a sign of things to come with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate.
WaPo:
In defiant ruling, Alabama Supreme Court stops same-sex marriage in state