The Supremes' Anti-Robo-Call Statute Decision This Morning... Means Texas Anti-ACA Case Is... Likely DOA.

About two weeks ago, I reiterated my three years running series of reasons why the Texas attempt to overturn the ACA of 2010, or Obamacare, if you prefer. . . would go nowhere. But this morning's ruling gives me a moment -- over my coffee -- to propose a rather novel additional thought.

I previously mentioned that the Supremes generally try to support the intent of Congress, once the Court finds the overall law constitutional. That, this Court did on at least two separate occasions -- in the past.

Today's complicated series of opinions on the robo-call law. . . strongly suggest the ACA of 2010 is safe. In the case this morning, the Court simply removed the small part of the law it found objectionable, and effectuated the intent of Congress, in keeping the rest of the law, in the face of a First Amendment challenge. No surprise.

But in bad news for Team Trump -- the proof is. . . Trump hasn't been able to as radically overhaul the Court as he claimed he could.

Once again, Team Trump tried, in Texas, to use about seven words in a multi-thousand page law -- to declare the whole thing a nullity. So now, here is the rest of that earlier post, from me:

. . .Forget for a moment that the Supremes' task, so long as the law is constitutional in the main (as the Supremes have twice previously ruled) is to protect, and interpret previously-passed laws -- yes, the job of the Court is to try to effectuate the intent of the Congress, not invalidate. . . the law. But forget that.

Just ask yourself whether the decision not to collect a narrow, particular tax (on a person or thing, in individual cases) is the same thing as committing an unconstitutional act, destroying the entirety of a thousand plus page law. Simple logic dictates it cannot be -- putting aside all the long-standing black letter law, on the topic. Trump's brief is a loser.

". . .Congress, we have held, does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions -- it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouse-holes. . . ."

That is Scalia, writing for the Court in Whitman. The Trumpers won't surmount common sense here.

I will thus focus on what is good -- and what matters most. Onward, to a better tomorrow.

नमस्ते