The State of California and multiple other states have appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court: California v. Texas

If Joe Biden were to take office in 2021, he could instruct his Department of Justice to drop the United States' objections to its own law (nuts), but the case is primarily Texas suing the United States, and removing that objection wouldn't end the Texas and other states' case against the United States nor the case on appeal in the SCOTUS where California and other states oppose the ruling of the lower courts.

Is that clear as mud? Check this out: https://tinyurl.com/y4v5u3wv

A little OT, but does anyone here know whether, assuming Biden wins, the new Biden admin could drop the ACA lawsuit currently before the SC?

Yes, they could and most certainly would. Maine and Wisconsin did after the 2018 midterms wherein Democratic governors were elected in those states.

Texas v. United States is a weak case, IMO, being supported by Texas and 18 states total and being opposed by California and New York and 21 states total in the Supreme Court. The issue: The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) passed by Republicans set the shared responsibility payment (individual mandate) of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to "zero dollars" beginning January 1, 2019. The plaintiff states want the entire ACA declared unconstitutional because that 2017 TCJA invalidated one provision of the ACA.

Easiest way to remedy the situation, in my opinion? Democrats should simply vote to reinstate what Republicans removed... and the issue is moot. If the Republicans can gut the ACA with a vote, then Democrats should "repair" it.

If so, this could make a pretty good campaign slogan: If elected I will immediately halt Trump's disastrous attempt to end healthcare for millions - etc.

They've been saying it constantly, and with the death of RBG, they're amplifying it upward.

"A little OT, but does anyone here know whether, assuming Biden wins, the new Biden admin could drop the ACA lawsuit currently before the SC?"

[14] ListenWhenYouHear wrote:
Alin,

"Biden’s DOJ would most definitely bring an end to the ACA lawsuit!"

Guys, it is probably already too late for that. 1) Oral arguments on the case will heard at the Supreme Court right after the election in November. 2) Even if Biden withdrew the Federal government from the case before a decision was rendered in January of 2021, the case would STILL go forward because of the Republican controlled states who brought the lawsuit against Obamacare in the first place. The Federal government is only ONE among MANY participants.

Biden’s DOJ would most definitely bring an end to the ACA lawsuit!

Isn’t the check and balance for the judiciary found in this sentence in the first section:

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,

Judges get to stay in power as long as they show “good behaviour” in carrying out their duties from the bench. And since they cannot be expected to determine whether their behaviour is “good” or “bad”, that’s how they get “checked and balanced”.

Good additional work by goode trickle in [3], as well. Thanks.

I guess I like the 18-years on the high bench, with two new appointments per presidential term, on the off years.

But if any of this gets moving, I would first have the court enlarged to 11, just to rebalance the loss of Garland and whoever the presumed President Biden would have named in early '21. Otherwise the Republicans get everything they wanted by violating the existing understandings, before the inherent reset of an entirely new procedure.

I am no fan of term limits in a democracy.

What I would go for is drawing a clear line in the sand as to when nominations would be forbidden in an election year.

But, if consensus could be found and Democrats and Republicans agree on who should be nominated in an election year, then that could be done at any point in an election year.

Also, the two-thirds vote threshold for a SCOTUS nominee should be restored. The Court will be better for it.

How about no SCOTUS nominations after the official nomination of a presidential candidate at the Democratic or Republican convention, whichever comes first?

I lean towards the term limit reform with staggered time lines and justices not being allowed a term longer than 18 years. It would provide stability with more moderate swings in temperament from conservative to liberal and more than likely result in more moderate picks from either side.

Were term limits to be imposed I would also go for what I would call "court packing light" and add as you suggest two justices for one term then the court would revert to 9 justices.

I would also make it explicit that you only get one term, in other words no going down to the appellate and getting nominated again down the road.

I gave thought to the whole appellate rotating justices system and might think it workable if perhaps it was for an entire session vs a case by case basis. We have to remember all of the emergency motions that also need to be dealt with, if 9 random judges were selected for the entire session stability in the function of the court system would be maintained as they could deal with the motions in normal course. Of course this means we would have to extend the service time to cover the in-between sessions time, perhaps the answer is to empanel the justices directly in the middle of session breaks. Doing that would allow the outgoing to get the incoming up to speed on pending carry over issues.

Ultimately, I decided the system unworkable unless a rating mandate is imposed to ensure neither side is allowed to nominate and confirm judges rated unqualified as the ABA puts it. Unfortunately both sides have nominated and confirmed too many judges rated unqualified that are still on the bench. Do we really want to chance a rated unqualified judge (let alone more than one )sitting in the position to render "supreme" judgement on laws that impact everyone?

My two cents on the matter, as you say the devil is in the details.

I went out on my porch and, from the looks of the swarming choppers, the curfew has not been heeded. On the other hand, the city of Louisville has not descended into chaos. It was very quiet downtown today.

If he were to lose all 50 states, he would not concede. That is not who he is. Everybody needs to accept that reality. He's a mental case with a very fragile ego.