John Roberts said : “I’m not worried about it because I’m not at risk,” “However, I do follow the rules and the precautions because of my parents. That’s why I’m getting tested because I do not want to bring it into my home”

680news Friday, November 27, 2020 8:38:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,”

wsvn Friday, November 27, 2020 3:21:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not,”

nytimes Friday, November 27, 2020 1:16:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,”

nypost Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:09:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : "It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,"

cbs46 Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:02:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “The governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not,” “And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic”

businessday Thursday, November 26, 2020 12:45:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive,”

foxnews Thursday, November 26, 2020 11:25:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,”

nypost Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:40:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,”

WashingtonPost Thursday, November 26, 2020 8:54:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “We have taken huge strides forward on our commitment to fix the fundamentals of our European business and we now have a profitable platform from which to accelerate growth,”

forbes Wednesday, November 25, 2020 5:05:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "This has been a half year like no other. I believe our market has changed as a result, forever. Online is now the dominant retail channel for customers and manufacturers alike,"

4-traders Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:55:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

wivb Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:40:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

wivb Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:40:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

wivb Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:40:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,"

newsday-USA Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:30:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : "But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

newsday-USA Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:30:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

chicagotribune Thursday, November 12, 2020 12:49:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

wate Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:33:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

wate Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:33:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job,"

arkansasonline Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:01:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : "But now the representation is that, 'Oh no, everything is fine without it.' Why the bait and switch?"

arkansasonline Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:01:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

medicalxpress Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:34:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

france24-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:48:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

france24-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:48:00 AM EAT

John Roberts stated : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

erietvnews Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:27:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court's three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. In the court's third major case over the 10-year-old law , popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19. California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law. Speaking after the arguments, Biden called the Republican-backed challenge to the law “cruel and needlessly divisive” and vowed to enact reforms to expand coverage when he’s in office next January, regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Tuesday's arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask. “I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins. A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate. Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump's other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch. The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts. The current case stems from a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law's passage. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year. An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion. If the case turns on the legal doctrine of severability, it would be in line with other rulings in recent years in which the justices have excised a problematic provision from a law and allowed the rest to remain in force. In the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold it. Roberts has endured a torrent of conservative criticism, including from Trump, for his earlier opinions, including the initial case in 2012 that upheld the mandate. Eight years ago, the law's defenders emphasized that the mandate was the linchpin of the whole law, Roberts said to Donald Verrilli, who represented the House on Tuesday, but was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer in 2012. “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

click2houston Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:29:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 6:38:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

13newsnow Wednesday, November 11, 2020 5:57:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : "We express no view on the soundness of the policy,"

chron Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts told : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

fox10tv Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:54:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:52:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

news-yahoo Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:22:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

msn-uk Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

msn-uk Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job,"

news-yahoo Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:45:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

france24-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:40:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

france24-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:40:00 AM EAT

John Roberts told ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “On the severance question, I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the Act,”

theepochtimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:01:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:58:00 AM EAT

John Roberts recalled : “Eight years ago, those defending the mandate emphasized that it was the key to the whole act,” “Everything turned on getting money from people forced to buy insurance to cover all the other shortfalls in the expansion of healthcare”

politico Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:42:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think that really expands standing dramatically,”

politico Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:42:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

koaa Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:41:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “This is a great strategic move for our company and our customers,”

marinelink Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:40:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,”

citizen Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:06:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

philly Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:05:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

nwitimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

yahoo-au Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:24:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

abcactionnews Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:20:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court's three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. In the court's third major case over the 10-year-old law , popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19. California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law. In arguments conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, the justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask. “I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins. A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate. Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump's other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch. The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts. The current case stems from a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law's passage. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year. An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion. If the case turns on the legal doctrine of severability, it would be in line with other rulings in recent years in which the justices have excised a problematic provision from a law and allowed the rest to remain in force. In the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold it. Roberts has endured a torrent of conservative criticism, including from Trump, for his earlier opinions, including the initial case in 2012 that upheld the mandate. Eight years ago, the law's defenders emphasized that the mandate was the linchpin of the whole law, Roberts said to Donald Verrilli, who represented the House on Tuesday, but was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer in 2012. “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

fox10tv Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court's three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. In the court's third major case over the 10-year-old law , popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19. California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law. Speaking after the arguments, Biden called the Republican-backed challenge to the law “cruel and needlessly divisive” and vowed to enact reforms to expand coverage when he’s in office next January, regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Tuesday's arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask. “I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins. A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate. Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump's other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch. The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts. The current case stems from a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law's passage. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year. An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion. If the case turns on the legal doctrine of severability, it would be in line with other rulings in recent years in which the justices have excised a problematic provision from a law and allowed the rest to remain in force. In the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold it. Roberts has endured a torrent of conservative criticism, including from Trump, for his earlier opinions, including the initial case in 2012 that upheld the mandate. Eight years ago, the law's defenders emphasized that the mandate was the linchpin of the whole law, Roberts said to Donald Verrilli, who represented the House on Tuesday, but was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer in 2012. “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

gazette Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:52:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

muscatinejournal Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:38:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

wishtv Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:37:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

krqe Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:35:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

krqe Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:35:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

dailymaverick Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:29:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

dailymaverick Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:29:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

afp-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:20:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

seattlepi Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:14:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job,"

startribune Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:02:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : "But now the representation is that, 'Oh no, everything is fine without it.' Why the bait and switch?"

startribune Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:02:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:39:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court's three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. In the court's third major case over the 10-year-old law, popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19. California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law. In arguments conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, the justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask. “I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins. A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate. Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump's other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch. The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts. The current case stems from a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law's passage. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year. An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion. If the case turns on the legal doctrine of severability, it would be in line with other rulings in recent years in which the justices have excised a problematic provision from a law and allowed the rest to remain in force. In the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold it. Roberts has endured a torrent of conservative criticism, including from Trump, for his earlier opinions, including the initial case in 2012 that upheld the mandate. Eight years ago, the law's defenders emphasized that the mandate was the linchpin of the whole law, Roberts said to Donald Verrilli, who represented the House on Tuesday, but was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer in 2012. “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

seattlepi Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:37:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

aljazeera-en Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:28:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

aljazeera-en Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:28:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

aljazeera-en Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:28:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

cbs46 Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:24:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

nwitimes Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:15:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact," "That seems to be a compelling answer to the question"

newsday-USA Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:15:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

HonululuAdvertiser Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:14:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Congress left the rest of the law intact when it lowered the penalty to zero,” “I think it’s hard for you to argue Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down if the same Congress that lowered the tax penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act”

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:09:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

myrecordjournal Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:58:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

lacrossetribune Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:57:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

thegrio Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:52:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:46:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “This court held that the mandate was a permissible exercise of taxing authority… That seems to have withered away,”

ABCnews Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : "How is it that, you know, this mandate just by itself without any penalty is anything more than a supplication or entreaty?"

ABCnews Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39:00 PM EAT

John Roberts argued : "In this change, where Congress reduces the penalty to zero, Congress has made the law less coercive,"

ABCnews Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

beaumontenterprise Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:38:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

eagletribune Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:31:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

wwlp Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

wkrn Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

wkrn Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

wkrn Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

fox59 Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:11:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," "I think, frankly, that they wanted this court to do that, but that's not our job"

foxnews Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:10:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:52:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,"

CBC Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:47:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,"

CBC Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:47:00 PM EAT

John Roberts told : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall when the same Congress didn't even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

msnbc Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:43:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

afp-en Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:41:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

usaToday Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:38:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

nypost Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:37:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:29:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:29:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

startribune Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:19:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

gazette Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:15:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

fox5sandiego Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

fox5sandiego Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

fox5sandiego Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

wate Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:12:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

wate Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:12:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

wate Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:12:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act [to] fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

thehill Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:11:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:52:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:52:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

wral Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:33:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : "That seems to be compelling evidence,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “We think it clear that Congress would prefer that we use a scalpel rather than a bulldozer in curing the constitutional defect we identify today,”

woub Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:06:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:57:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:57:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:57:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : "We think it clear that Congress would prefer that we use a scalpel rather than a bulldozer in curing the constitutional defect we identify today,"

npr Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:35:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “It doesn’t seem to me that that should be terribly administratively burdensome,”

theepochtimes Tuesday, November 10, 2020 3:10:00 AM EAT

John Roberts وقال : "سيكون لديكم (...) مقبلات في بادئ الأمر ثم أطباق رئيسية وتحليات. حاليا، يجب ألاّ تهتموا لمعرفة ما إذا هذا التنظيم محميا بموجب حقوق المؤلف"

alquds Friday, October 9, 2020 10:00:00 AM EAT

John Roberts declarou : "Nossa nação perdeu um jurista de estatura histórica. Todos nós na Suprema Corte perdemos uma colega querida. Lamentamos hoje, mas estamos confiantes de que as gerações futuras recordarão Ruth Bader Ginsburg como a conhecíamos, uma incansável e determinada campeã da justiça"

uol Saturday, September 19, 2020 6:55:00 PM EAT

John Roberts disse : “A doutrina legal exige que, na ausência de circunstâncias especiais, tratemos [o caso] como [outros] casos semelhantes. A lei da Louisiana impõe um ônus ao acesso ao aborto tão severo quanto o imposto pela lei do Texas, pelas mesmas razões”

veja Monday, June 29, 2020 11:37:00 PM EAT

John Roberts écrit : "La loi mise en place par la Louisiane restreint l'accès à l'avortement de manière tout aussi sévère que la loi du Texas, et pour les mêmes raisons. Par conséquent, la loi de la Louisiane ne peut pas être maintenue en vertu de ce précédent"

french.china.org.cn Monday, June 29, 2020 10:54:00 PM EAT

John Roberts déclaré ( about Bill Clinton ) : "Il n'y a pas de juges pro-Obama, ou de juges pro-Trump, pro-Bush ou pro-Clinton"

lexpress Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:49:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I’m not worried about it because I’m not at risk,” “However, I do follow the rules and the precautions because of my parents. That’s why I’m getting tested because I do not want to bring it into my home”

680news Friday, November 27, 2020 8:38:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,”

wsvn Friday, November 27, 2020 3:21:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not,”

nytimes Friday, November 27, 2020 1:16:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,”

nypost Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:09:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : "It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,"

cbs46 Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:02:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “The governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not,” “And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic”

businessday Thursday, November 26, 2020 12:45:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive,”

foxnews Thursday, November 26, 2020 11:25:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,”

nypost Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:40:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,”

WashingtonPost Thursday, November 26, 2020 8:54:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “We have taken huge strides forward on our commitment to fix the fundamentals of our European business and we now have a profitable platform from which to accelerate growth,”

forbes Wednesday, November 25, 2020 5:05:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "This has been a half year like no other. I believe our market has changed as a result, forever. Online is now the dominant retail channel for customers and manufacturers alike,"

4-traders Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:55:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

wivb Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:40:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

wivb Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:40:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

wivb Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:40:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,"

newsday-USA Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:30:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : "But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

newsday-USA Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:30:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

chicagotribune Thursday, November 12, 2020 12:49:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

wate Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:33:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

wate Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:33:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job,"

arkansasonline Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:01:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : "But now the representation is that, 'Oh no, everything is fine without it.' Why the bait and switch?"

arkansasonline Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:01:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

medicalxpress Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:34:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

france24-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:48:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

france24-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:48:00 AM EAT

John Roberts stated : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

erietvnews Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:27:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court's three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. In the court's third major case over the 10-year-old law , popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19. California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law. Speaking after the arguments, Biden called the Republican-backed challenge to the law “cruel and needlessly divisive” and vowed to enact reforms to expand coverage when he’s in office next January, regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Tuesday's arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask. “I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins. A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate. Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump's other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch. The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts. The current case stems from a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law's passage. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year. An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion. If the case turns on the legal doctrine of severability, it would be in line with other rulings in recent years in which the justices have excised a problematic provision from a law and allowed the rest to remain in force. In the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold it. Roberts has endured a torrent of conservative criticism, including from Trump, for his earlier opinions, including the initial case in 2012 that upheld the mandate. Eight years ago, the law's defenders emphasized that the mandate was the linchpin of the whole law, Roberts said to Donald Verrilli, who represented the House on Tuesday, but was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer in 2012. “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

click2houston Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:29:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 6:38:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

13newsnow Wednesday, November 11, 2020 5:57:00 AM EAT

John Roberts wrote : "We express no view on the soundness of the policy,"

chron Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts told : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

fox10tv Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:54:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:52:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

news-yahoo Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:22:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

msn-uk Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

msn-uk Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job,"

news-yahoo Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:45:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

france24-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:40:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

france24-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:40:00 AM EAT

John Roberts told ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “On the severance question, I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the Act,”

theepochtimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:01:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:58:00 AM EAT

John Roberts recalled : “Eight years ago, those defending the mandate emphasized that it was the key to the whole act,” “Everything turned on getting money from people forced to buy insurance to cover all the other shortfalls in the expansion of healthcare”

politico Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:42:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think that really expands standing dramatically,”

politico Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:42:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

koaa Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:41:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “This is a great strategic move for our company and our customers,”

marinelink Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:40:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,”

citizen Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:06:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

philly Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:05:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

nwitimes Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

yahoo-au Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:24:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

abcactionnews Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:20:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court's three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. In the court's third major case over the 10-year-old law , popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19. California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law. In arguments conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, the justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask. “I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins. A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate. Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump's other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch. The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts. The current case stems from a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law's passage. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year. An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion. If the case turns on the legal doctrine of severability, it would be in line with other rulings in recent years in which the justices have excised a problematic provision from a law and allowed the rest to remain in force. In the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold it. Roberts has endured a torrent of conservative criticism, including from Trump, for his earlier opinions, including the initial case in 2012 that upheld the mandate. Eight years ago, the law's defenders emphasized that the mandate was the linchpin of the whole law, Roberts said to Donald Verrilli, who represented the House on Tuesday, but was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer in 2012. “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

fox10tv Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:59:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court's three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. In the court's third major case over the 10-year-old law , popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19. California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law. Speaking after the arguments, Biden called the Republican-backed challenge to the law “cruel and needlessly divisive” and vowed to enact reforms to expand coverage when he’s in office next January, regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Tuesday's arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask. “I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins. A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate. Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump's other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch. The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts. The current case stems from a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law's passage. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year. An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion. If the case turns on the legal doctrine of severability, it would be in line with other rulings in recent years in which the justices have excised a problematic provision from a law and allowed the rest to remain in force. In the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold it. Roberts has endured a torrent of conservative criticism, including from Trump, for his earlier opinions, including the initial case in 2012 that upheld the mandate. Eight years ago, the law's defenders emphasized that the mandate was the linchpin of the whole law, Roberts said to Donald Verrilli, who represented the House on Tuesday, but was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer in 2012. “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

gazette Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:52:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

muscatinejournal Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:38:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

wishtv Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:37:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

krqe Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:35:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?”

krqe Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:35:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

dailymaverick Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:29:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

dailymaverick Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:29:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

afp-en Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:20:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

seattlepi Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:14:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job,"

startribune Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:02:00 AM EAT

John Roberts asked : "But now the representation is that, 'Oh no, everything is fine without it.' Why the bait and switch?"

startribune Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:02:00 AM EAT

John Roberts said : “They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:39:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court's three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. In the court's third major case over the 10-year-old law, popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19. California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law. In arguments conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, the justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask. “I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins. A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate. Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump's other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch. The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts. The current case stems from a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law's passage. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year. An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion. If the case turns on the legal doctrine of severability, it would be in line with other rulings in recent years in which the justices have excised a problematic provision from a law and allowed the rest to remain in force. In the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold it. Roberts has endured a torrent of conservative criticism, including from Trump, for his earlier opinions, including the initial case in 2012 that upheld the mandate. Eight years ago, the law's defenders emphasized that the mandate was the linchpin of the whole law, Roberts said to Donald Verrilli, who represented the House on Tuesday, but was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer in 2012. “But now the representation is that, ‘Oh no, everything is fine without it.’ Why the bait and switch?"

seattlepi Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:37:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

aljazeera-en Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:28:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

aljazeera-en Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:28:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

aljazeera-en Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:28:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

cbs46 Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:24:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

nwitimes Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:15:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact," "That seems to be a compelling answer to the question"

newsday-USA Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:15:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

HonululuAdvertiser Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:14:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Congress left the rest of the law intact when it lowered the penalty to zero,” “I think it’s hard for you to argue Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down if the same Congress that lowered the tax penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act”

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:09:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

myrecordjournal Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:58:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

lacrossetribune Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:57:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

thegrio Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:52:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:46:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “This court held that the mandate was a permissible exercise of taxing authority… That seems to have withered away,”

ABCnews Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39:00 PM EAT

John Roberts asked : "How is it that, you know, this mandate just by itself without any penalty is anything more than a supplication or entreaty?"

ABCnews Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39:00 PM EAT

John Roberts argued : "In this change, where Congress reduces the penalty to zero, Congress has made the law less coercive,"

ABCnews Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

beaumontenterprise Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:38:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

eagletribune Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:31:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

wwlp Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

wkrn Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

wkrn Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

wkrn Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

fox59 Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:11:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," "I think, frankly, that they wanted this court to do that, but that's not our job"

foxnews Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:10:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

suntimes Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:52:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,"

CBC Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:47:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,"

CBC Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:47:00 PM EAT

John Roberts told : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall when the same Congress didn't even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

msnbc Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:43:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended for the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

afp-en Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:41:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

usaToday Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:38:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

nypost Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:37:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:29:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:29:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

startribune Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:19:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

gazette Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:15:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

fox5sandiego Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

fox5sandiego Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

fox5sandiego Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:13:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

wate Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:12:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

wate Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:12:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

wate Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:12:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act [to] fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,"

thehill Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:11:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:52:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:52:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question”

wral Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:33:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,”

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : "It's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : "We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : "That seems to be compelling evidence,"

news-yahoo Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:26:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : “We think it clear that Congress would prefer that we use a scalpel rather than a bulldozer in curing the constitutional defect we identify today,”

woub Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:06:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said ( about Affordable Care Act ) : “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:57:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “We ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:57:00 PM EAT

John Roberts added : “That seems to be compelling evidence,”

ara-reuters Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:57:00 PM EAT

John Roberts wrote : "We think it clear that Congress would prefer that we use a scalpel rather than a bulldozer in curing the constitutional defect we identify today,"

npr Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:35:00 PM EAT

John Roberts said : “It doesn’t seem to me that that should be terribly administratively burdensome,”

theepochtimes Tuesday, November 10, 2020 3:10:00 AM EAT

John Roberts وقال : "سيكون لديكم (...) مقبلات في بادئ الأمر ثم أطباق رئيسية وتحليات. حاليا، يجب ألاّ تهتموا لمعرفة ما إذا هذا التنظيم محميا بموجب حقوق المؤلف"

alquds Friday, October 9, 2020 10:00:00 AM EAT

John Roberts declarou : "Nossa nação perdeu um jurista de estatura histórica. Todos nós na Suprema Corte perdemos uma colega querida. Lamentamos hoje, mas estamos confiantes de que as gerações futuras recordarão Ruth Bader Ginsburg como a conhecíamos, uma incansável e determinada campeã da justiça"

uol Saturday, September 19, 2020 6:55:00 PM EAT

John Roberts disse : “A doutrina legal exige que, na ausência de circunstâncias especiais, tratemos [o caso] como [outros] casos semelhantes. A lei da Louisiana impõe um ônus ao acesso ao aborto tão severo quanto o imposto pela lei do Texas, pelas mesmas razões”

veja Monday, June 29, 2020 11:37:00 PM EAT

John Roberts écrit : "La loi mise en place par la Louisiane restreint l'accès à l'avortement de manière tout aussi sévère que la loi du Texas, et pour les mêmes raisons. Par conséquent, la loi de la Louisiane ne peut pas être maintenue en vertu de ce précédent"

french.china.org.cn Monday, June 29, 2020 10:54:00 PM EAT

John Roberts déclaré ( about Bill Clinton ) : "Il n'y a pas de juges pro-Obama, ou de juges pro-Trump, pro-Bush ou pro-Clinton"

lexpress Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:49:00 AM EAT