Posted on 07/22/2014 8:41:02 AM PDT by gwjack
As hoosiermama requested, these are the opinions in the Halbig v. Burwell case.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85257D1D004E6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf
The government and its amici are thus left to urge the court to infer meaning from silence, arguing that during the debates over the ACA, no one suggested, let alone explicitly stated, that a States citizens would lose access to the tax credits if the State failed to establish its own Exchange. Br. of Amici Members of Congress and State Legislatures 8. The historical record, however, belies this claim. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) proposed a bill that specifically contemplated penalizing states that refused to participate in establishing American Health Benefit Gateways, the equivalent of Exchanges, by denying credits to such states residents for four years. See Affordable Health Choices Act, S. 1679, 111th Cong. § 3104(a), (d)(2) (2009). This is not to say that section 36B necessarily incorporated this thinking; we agree that inferences from unenacted legislation are too uncertain to be a helpful guide to the intent behind a specific provision. See Village of Barrington v. Surface Transp. Bd., 636 F.3d 650, 666 (D.C. Cir. 2011). But the HELP Committees bill certainly demonstrates that members of Congress at least considered the notion of using subsidies as an incentive to gain states cooperation.I gave a good whack at reading the opinion, but MEGO (mine eyes glaze over) instantly, Im afraid, trying to read the dissent. I cant claim to have given it a fair reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.