This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

RE: King v Burwell

From:jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com To: ntanden@gmail.com CC: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-06-02 22:37 Subject: RE: King v Burwell

I’m into it but defer to Jen on this one. * oops! I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it's a bit more current now. It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it's possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off. In this case, I'm not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling against the government. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It's not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision...the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue. At CAP Action, we can get that story started. But kinda rests on you guys to make it stick. What do you think? If you want to proceed, we should move soon. Let me know thoughts. And I'm happy to discuss. Neera On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: No content in message? > On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:20 PM, Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> wrote: >