Posted on 07/22/2014 7:30:07 AM PDT by gwjack
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates. In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
No worries. Roberts will rewrite the law so that it can still torture the subjects. That is how he rolls. If the legislature does it wrong, he becomes the legislature. The four Liberal clowns have no compunction to lie and steal as they are Liberal. They will go along with anything that reduces the citizenry to slaves of the Central Planners.
Since when does this administration care about little things like that?......................
Agree. The intent of the wording was to encourage states to set up their own exchanges rather than having the federal government bear the responsibility for funding and implementation. The wording was intentional. Obama didn’t expect so many states to opt out of setting up the exchange.
Not really.
So far, only the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with 29 judges, utilizes that procedure, and its en banc court consists of 11 judges. Theoretically, the Ninth Circuit can hear the case with all judges participating. In practice, however, such a hearing has only been requested five times; the requests have all been denied.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with 17 judges, is eligible to adopt a similar procedure and has done so in 1986. State of La. ex rel. Guste v. M/V TESTBANK, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985) (en banc)
Just keep in mind that this was a 3-judge panel ruling. The next step will be en banc, before the entire circuit.
Which was just stacked with Obama appointees thanks to Harry Reid exercising the nuclear option. The Dems knew this was coming, and prepped for it. I’d expect a reversal en banc.
It will be appealed to the SCOTUS, either way.
Wasn't the IRS one of the defendants in the lawsuit? Seems to me Obama can make the IRS's request for an en banc hearing happen.
“hat is not part of the legal process. In fact it may be illegal.”
It is part of the normal legal process.
It’s call an “en banc” re-hearing.
I’m not even really American and know this stuff. What do they teach in schools?
Don’t worry - the Republicans will setup a special session and re-write this portion of the Act to allow for the subsidy.
Think I’m kidding?
“Unmentioned is that if you received subsidies and they were not legal, you must pay them back”
HA. Wonderful.
Substandard to, say, a bronze plan that doesn’t cover cr##? Agghh - it just gets worse...
What confuses me is: Is there a part of the ACA that clearly states “where there are no subsidies there are no taxes that can be collected for not having compliant insurance.”?
Thanks, SCalGal. Another reason to be happy I never signed up.
There’s an election in the very near future.....anf some of these judges are vulnerable.......could affect the outcome....hopefully in our favor!
Love your word picture!!!!!!......encouraging!
Yeah. The case is Halbig v. Sebelius. The IRS is a party to the lawsuit and can request the en banc hearing. The Obama administration can ask for the en banc hearing and can appeal to the Supreme Court.
These judges are appointed for life. Which is why Reid used the nuclear option to stack this court with Obama appointees.
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.