Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Ray76

I keep hearing we’re expecting the decision, and yet, nothing...any ideas on when we might actually get the verdict? I’ve been hearing any day since early July.


2 posted on 07/18/2014 1:34:12 PM PDT by dware (3 prohibited topics in mixed company: politics, religion and operating systems...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dware

Like everyone else, I’m waiting too.


3 posted on 07/18/2014 1:39:14 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: dware

It’s been announced for weeks now that we’ll get a decision on a certain day, and that day comes and goes without a word.


4 posted on 07/18/2014 3:09:16 PM PDT by yorkiemom ( "...if fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: dware
SEC. 1401 of the ACA creates section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code

36B(b)(2) specifies the premium assistance amount is equal to the lesser of SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) or SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B).

SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) is explicitly specified as applying to an Exchange established by the State under 1311.

For SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B) to be given effect SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B) must necessarily also refer to Exchanges established by the State under 1311, otherwise 36B(b)(2) would be meaningless because a taxpayer can not be enrolled in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser amount applies.

The proposition that SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) “Exchange established by the State under 1311 includes “Exchange established by the Federal government under 1321 is absurd. Equally ridiculous is that “Exchange established by the State under 1311 simply be read out of SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A).

Courts would have to do one or the other, introduce absurdities or read out of the statute clauses, in order for the act to satisfy what an agency, the IRS, claims is Congress’ intent. The law is not ambiguous or unreasonable, Congress’ intent is clear. There are no "errors" for the judiciary to correct.

The court can not reconstruct a statute to satisfy an agency’s claim.

The act explicitly provides tax credits for state-run exchanges and excludes such credits for federally run exchanges.

7 posted on 07/18/2014 5:25:51 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson