Skip to comments.Obama’s Law Professor: "I Wouldn’t Bet" on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge
Posted on 07/22/2014 8:42:45 AM PDT by Biggirl
click here to read article
Even if Obamacare is struck down, it will still have much support among the American people who believe it will “stick it” to doctors and hospitals.
Not at all; the American people don't like the truth unless it is what they want to hear.
We live in hope!
Slowly, people are starting wake up, give it time.
“In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority “portends disastrous consequences.”
As if Obamacare isn’t a not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Constitution!
Judge Thomas Griffith - Bush nominee
Judge Harry Edwards - Carter nominee
I won't bother posting pictures because your mind's eye already knows what will appear.
I tend to think that SCOTUS will ultimately take and decide this regardless of what the packed DC Circuit does.
If for no other reason than that we have four (original dissenters) who still hate the law, I think they will hear the case. As long as the composition of the court doesn’t change I think there is a decent chance that Roberts will join the four original dissenters and say that it is not the job of the court to protect legislation from its own explicit language.
The court did just that in a recent EPA case with the five justices we need in this case.
It’s the best legal challenge to the ACA available from my vantage point.
If Roberts had gone against Hobby Lobby I wouldn’t even hold out any hope on this one. But his willingness to piss off the administration makes me think his vote is seriously in play here.
We all hope you're right.
Yea my hope (emphasis on hope) is that Roberts has seen the aftermath of the ACA and regretted it ever since.
From his standpoint he could easily rule with the conservatives on this one and say “I take the cases as they come and this time Congress didn’t leave us with any other choice but to follow the clear language which could have (but wasn’t) been written to mean what the IRS wants it to mean”.
The majority can clearly and plainly pin this ruling right on the donkey where it belongs.
Perhaps Roberts learned his lesson about deals with the devil and how well they turn out.
They wrote the law and shouldn’t get to have the court fix their mistake just because they don’t have the present majority to get it amended legislatively.
As a lawyer it is clear cut to me. The language isn’t ambiguous and it’s not a scrivener error, so the court should apply it as such.
The dishonest and ridiculous arguments from the WH and the left reek of desperation.
I would like to know if Obama's Law Professor would bet on Obama finishing his term..................
I suspect he is right and it is a very sad commentary on the state of justice in America. It has frightening implications for the rule of law and our society. As people catch on to what is happening, that is, that we have the "rule of party" as Limbaugh says rather than the "rule of law" we can expect cynicism and its handmaiden, corruption to spread even faster throughout the land.
Widespread corruption means economic and social disintegration. One more legacy which has Obama smiling as his transformation proceeds apace.
You got it and I am afraid it will make things worse for America.
Kill 0bamaCare before it kills you!
I don’t know if there will ultimately be a split after the full DC Circuirt rules.
That said, I highly doubt that the SCOTUS is going to let something of this magnitude get decided by the lower courts.
The other main reason is that all we need is four to get the case heard, and the original four dissenters really have nothing to lose by hearing this case.
Often times one side will choose not to hear an appeal if it thinks it won’t get five votes, for fear that it will just be more precedent to overcome in the future.
But this is a case of statutory interpretation so there’s no reason to fear taking it.
We could talk all day about the lower courts, statutory interpretation, that EPA case (which is on point), but at the end of the day it will come right down to Roberts.
There’s not one ounce of intellectual honesty on the left, and Roberts is (or has been) too caught up in the perception of the court and his legacy to be reliable.
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.