Skip to comments.
Judge Rejects Lawsuit on Scope of Obamacare Subsidies(Although the law clearly says the opposite)
newsmax ^
| 2/19/14
| m batley
Posted on 02/19/2014 12:50:21 PM PST by bestintxas
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
No wonder Obama got Reid to change Senate rules so he can install his own.
Easier to judge-shop.
To: bestintxas
Henry Bowman; cleanup in aisle 9.
2
posted on
02/19/2014 12:52:04 PM PST
by
Paladin2
To: bestintxas
Roberts set the predicate for the Courts.
3
posted on
02/19/2014 12:52:56 PM PST
by
AU72
To: bestintxas
Escalation needed. Another SCOTUS challenge?
4
posted on
02/19/2014 12:54:42 PM PST
by
rjsimmon
(1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
To: bestintxas
Almost all federal judges believe in and support big government, and will never rule to find it unconstitutional. The federal judiciary is in the back pocket of Leviathan.
Case closed.
5
posted on
02/19/2014 12:56:14 PM PST
by
mojito
(Zero, our Nero.)
To: bestintxas
Exactly. I gave up hoping that the courts would do the right thing when Roberts proved what a wuss he is
6
posted on
02/19/2014 12:56:59 PM PST
by
Nifster
To: bestintxas
But hey, let's just keep voting every two years. That will reverse the assault on our freedoms.
7
posted on
02/19/2014 12:58:25 PM PST
by
Jacquerie
( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
To: mojito
"Almost all federal judges believe in and support big government, and will never rule to find it unconstitutional. The federal judiciary is in the back pocket of Leviathan.' I agree. The only thing of value to be gained from going to court is the self satisfaction in having made an attempt to stand on principle. Otherwise it is a waste of the plaintiff's and taxpayers money.
8
posted on
02/19/2014 1:01:18 PM PST
by
buckalfa
(Tilting at Windmills)
To: bestintxas
The decision has been a setback for Republican lawmakers and limited government advocates seeking to roll back the scope of the law, and who criticize the Obama administration for making unilateral decisions about the way the federal healthcare law should be applied.
"While on the surface, Plaintiffs' plain meaning interpretation of [that section of the law] has a certain common sense appeal, the lack of any support in the legislative history of the ACA indicates that it is not a viable theory," wrote U.S. District Court Judge James Spencer in his decision, according to the Times. James Spencer, in other words, is ignoring the PLAIN MEANING and COMMON SENSE APPEAL of the law. He is doing this OPENLY, PROUDLY, AND WITHOUT APOLOGY.
This is how ridiculous we have become: JUDGES writing the LAW to fit whatever ideology they think is appropriate.
This is not liberty, it is statism.
To: bestintxas
the lack of any support in the legislative history of the ACA
What exactly does that mean?
10
posted on
02/19/2014 1:10:39 PM PST
by
andyk
(I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
To: Jacquerie
To: bestintxas
A Reagan Appointee - 1986 - Army JAG Corps 1975-1978 - Military Judge 1981-1986.
|
|
America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi! |
|
|
EAGLES UP! Once more unto the breach, my friends, once more!
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)
12
posted on
02/19/2014 1:15:05 PM PST
by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
To: andyk
Basically, the allegation of the plaintiffs is that the legislation was intentionally drafted to exclude the federal exchange from the subsidies, as an inducement to the states to set up their own exchanges.
The government says no, the Federal exchange was always intended to be like the state exchanges with regard to the subsidies, and that the exclusion of mentioning the Federal exchange was a mistake.
Both judges that have ruled on this issue have made the same point that there is not enough evidence for the plaintiff’s point, and so the claim that it was just a mistake that should be corrected administratively should be accepted.
To: babble-on
Whats your suggestion?
Re-federalize the consolidated government, as per the plan of our framers.
Divide power once again between a federal government and the states that created it. When senators are once again appointed by the states, there isn't a chance that anti-10th Amendment loser lawyers would find a cozy home on a federal bench anywhere.
Article V.
14
posted on
02/19/2014 1:19:16 PM PST
by
Jacquerie
( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
To: bestintxas
Most federal judges are robed apes.
To: Jacquerie
but you seek to do so without resorting to elections. What is the mechanism you have in mind for effecting that goal?
To: babble-on
17
posted on
02/19/2014 1:24:27 PM PST
by
Jacquerie
( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
To: Jacquerie
No kidding. I concur, in spades. Republicans, even conservatives, have been far too polite to be seen in the streets, or ever being fussy in public.
Rather, we sit around waiting for the ballot every two years and wonder why things are exponentially worse every election.
Other countries are fighting for their lives, tooth and nail.
But..... between the two year ballot we’ve got internet to sit around and vent on, keeping us quiet and occupied— impotent.
18
posted on
02/19/2014 1:29:34 PM PST
by
RitaOK
( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
To: AU72
SCOTUS no longer has any authority.
Roberts "legacy" is to have scuttled the SCOTUS.
19
posted on
02/19/2014 1:41:15 PM PST
by
Paladin2
To: babble-on
If the court’s interpretation is correct, what reason or incentive was there for any state to go through the bother and expense of setting up their own exchange?
20
posted on
02/19/2014 1:49:15 PM PST
by
Bubba_Leroy
(The Obamanation Continues)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson