Posted on 02/13/2015 7:27:35 AM PST by Maceman
But that is relevant. Calling “the idiot in the White House” exactly that demonstrates the credibility of the plaintiffs. We know we can trust them to tell the truth.
Apparently, in this case, the word that will make or break the case is “such.”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/the-one-word-that-could-save-obamacare-20150208
Standing is a bygone issue as the Court has granted cert.
Ah, but there’s the rub. As long as a law hurts everybody, nobody has “particularized” harm and thus nobody has standing.
IOW, when practicing tyranny, go big - because if you harm everybody, our judicial system says you actually harm nobody.
It’s absolutely nutso.
They are attempting to obfuscate by claiming there is ambiguity where none exists.
but would they be allowed to be added to the complaint at this stage or would the suit need to be re initiated?
ObamaCare = Illegal
They wish. SCOTUS has already determined the plaintiffs have standing.
I don’t ever trust the court after Roberts twisted version the first time it wound up there. I don’t think they’ll throw out the subsidies and with them Obamacare. IF they do it would truly shock me.
More to the point though is that they're really grasping at straws. Their claim is based on SEC. 1321 (c)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the PPACA, part of which I've highlighted.
(c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary deter- mines necessary to implement—
(I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such sub- titles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not- for-profit entity) establish and
operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are
necessary to implement such other requirements.
At issue is whether the IRS, by providing tax credits to those who enrolled through Federally established and operated exchanges, violated the law.
SEC. 1401(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section:
SEC. 36B (a) In General.--In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed
as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year
an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for
the taxable year.
(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount.--For purposes of this section--
(1) In general.-- <> The term `premium assistance
credit amount' means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum
of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2)
with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring
during the taxable year.
(2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance amount determined
under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount
equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more
qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such
month for the applicable second lowest cost silver
plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product
of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's
household income for the taxable year.
SEC. 1321 (c)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the PPACA clearly states "the Secretary shall [ ] establish and operate such Exchange within the State"
Their claim reeks of desperation. This is a pathetic attempt to generate an ambiguity where none exists.
Regarding the tax credits:
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 Exchanges established by the State and excludes tax credits for Exchanges established by the Federal government.
Anybody who thinks our gay-marriage friends on the Court are not going to affirm Obamacare (again) is dreaming.
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.