The Dems were in absolute panic mode because Barrett would swing the court irreversibly to a "conservative" majority. Which was unacceptable to the Dems .
But the real divide in the court is between textual interpretation of the constitution vs activist "living breathing " make it up as you go along interpretation .

So you thought that Barrett would go in there with a preconceived 'conservative 'view that Obamacare must be overturned . The reason that you thought so was because Barrett had opined that Chief Justice Roberts had wrongly decided the ' NFIB V Sebelius ' Obamacare case . Well he did wrongly decide it because he changed the plain language off the law making a "penalty" for not signing up with Obamacare into a "tax" ;even though the emperor and Congress made it clear it was not a tax .

The argument before the court re: Obamacare is that once Congress removed the mandate from the law( Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,),that the law became unconstitutional . It is true that once the mandate was removed then a critical funding mechanism for the law was removed . But did that make the law unconstitutional ? Texas asked that question (Texas v US )

Based on the oral arguments this week(California v Texas ) it appears that both "conservative " justices Barrett and Kavanaugh believe that declaring one part of the law unconstitutional ;or Congress removing a part of the law does not necessarily make the rest of the law unconstitutional . It is called ' severability ' ,and it became a topic of discussion during the Barrett confirmation hearings .Democrats were skeptical believing that Barrett disregard the precedent of severability when Obamacare came up before the court . But Barrett and Kavanaugh ;again based on their questions in oral argument , appear to be leaning towards upholding Obamacare and the severability doctrine .

Barrett also had some questions about Texas having standing .That may be a key factor on how she votes.

My own view was that with or without the mandate Obamacare is unconstitutional because it forces people by law to purchase a product. No it is not the same as states compelling people to buy auto insurance because there is no mandate for anyone to drive or own a car. In this case it is not relevant to the discussion because that is not what is being argued before the court .
Oh an ' activist' 'conservative ' court would do a broad interpretation and strike the whole law down. But a textualist majority court may not .

Kavanaugh said "It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the law in place. " Barret said in her confirmation hearings ;"I think the doctrine of severability, as it's been described by the court, you know serves a valuable function of trying not to undo your work when you wouldn't want a court to undo your work,"..."Severability strives to look at a statute as a whole and say, would Congress have considered this provision so vital that, kind of in the Jenga game, pulling it out, Congress wouldn't want the statute anymore." "It's designed to effectuate your intent, but you know severability is designed to say well, would Congress still want the statute to stand, even with this provision gone? Would Congress have still passed the same statute without it?" But she also told Sen Graham that no previous challenge to Obamacare addressed severability . So there really is no precedence to consider .

On the issue of standing Barrett asked Texas to explain how the actions of HHS or the IRS actually injure the plaintiffs. Texas claimed that it has the right to challenge Obamacare because the law provides possible penalties for non-compliance. But when Congress essentially severed the mandate ,they in fact allowed for the "tax " to remain. They just set the "tax" at $0 .(What is to stop the Congress from making the tax a positive value at any time they choose ? That is the unanswered question)

What is presumed from a precedence standpoint is that by not repealing the law and only severing the mandate ,it was Congress' intent to keep the rest of the law. A plaintiff would have to make the case then that the whole law is unconstitutional ;not just the funding mechanism that has for all intent has already been removed from the law.
It is my best guess that SCOTUS will uphold Obamacare ;even with the hated Kavanaugh and Barrett on the court . Such a decision would expose Dems shameless fearmongering about Amy Coney Barrett as a disgusting political ploy.

Me ? I would go further ,bucking precedence that goes back decades (Brown v Board of Education reversed a previously bad SCOTUS ruling ) . I would use the Obamacare case to strike down 'Wickard v Filburn' ;the decision that used an overly broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause to create the bloated leviathan Federal Bureaucracy aka the swamp.

Let's start at the beginning here Tom and realize the Kavanaugh and Barrett picks along with Gorsuch was as dirty and underhanded as it gets and that is what had dems heads exploding. Like everything else in the dufus era, the rhetoric is soaring and exaggerated on both sides trying to score points.

You don't have to justify your conservative bonafides with me, but geez you give out an awful lot of homework! *O!

Tal, a President does what a President does and all this was done legally and properly, all you can complain about is timing since neither has made any soaring legal pronouncements

LOL Clete, watch what they do not what they say.

again, what have they done?

dirty and underhanded you must be talking about the smear campaign conducted against Kavanaugh . Kavanaugh was considered a moderate conservative in the court and still the Dems pulled out a last minute desperation smear campaign against him. His votes in SCOTUS demonstrate the fact that he is not a hard line conservative .

As to the question about what have they done ? I already answered about Kavanaugh .If not for Chief Justice Roberts ,he would be the swing vote and has often sided with Roberts to give the liberal side lopsided rulings.
Barrett has not tipped her hat yet . But My posting shows that I believe she will not be motivated by strict doctrine and will rule instead on the merits of the case.
Gorsuch has been a reliable textualist . But he replaced the justice that most defined the textual interpretation school of thought . It was the emperor who tried to upend the apple cart by attempting to appoint Garland .

I can understand why you would think the Barrett or Gorsuch appointments were underhanded(but not both) . Neither were; but I can understand why you would think so . But how do you come to that conclusion with Kavanaugh ? He replaced Justice Kennedy who retired . As I said ,Kavanaugh is a moderate and he was selected to replace a moderate justice.

It's not the judges themselves but the way it went down. I feel like you stole Obama's pick and Biden's pick...and you did. That's not okay and there may be a price to pay.

sour grapes

Be that way sometimes Clete.

no I was meaning you, the process was constitutional so noone stole anything

the process was constitutional so noone stole anything yes Had the Dems controlled the Senate they would've done the same thing. Look at what they are threatening to do if they take the 2 Georgia seats and get the majority (with a Harris tie breaking vote ) .

They would be within the rules to press their agenda if they did pull it off in Georgia.

Kavanaugh and Barrett(and of course Chief Justice Roberts ) voted with the libs to deny religious exemptions for the covid vaccine mandate for medical professionals in Maine .