FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/04/2015 7:48:32 AM PST by GIdget2004
See how things are going at the link....
"The challengers’ attorney Michael Carvin barely got a dozen words out before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interrupted him to ask about his plaintiffs’ standing."
"Justice Anthony Kennedy says he sees 'a serious constitutional problem' in the idea Congress would force states to set up exchanges or risk their residents losing tax credits."
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Forget the courts saving us from Obi Won Kenyanesian.
They have been compromised as well.
The Give Obama Power party gave the Democrats their permanent majority yesterday.
Welcome to North Mexico.
So now they are going to say it is unconstitutional, the part of subsidies for only the state run exchanges.
Great....So that’s legit but forcing state citizens to buy health insurance isn’t even when the state doesn’t agree.
How does that logic compute?
I’m actually looking forward to seeing how Roberts tries to twist the meaning of english words to mean something they don’t mean, until he decides they do.
This is now a damn no win situation. If the court rules it is fair to create new law, it’s another loss for the rule of law. If they decide correctly that it is outside the law, these idiots will grant Obama whatever he wants with zero real concessions, and the law will then be codified by the supposed opposition party.
The fix is in.
Again.
Obama might not even have to blackmail Roberts this time.
Roberts said it was a tax, so the government can compel residents of any state to pay it.
With that legal “invention”, he ensured the survival of Obamacare, unless it’s repealed.
Writing is on the wall, they will say it says what it says, but it is unconstitutional.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Here’s another excellent source of current information on the hearing:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/
Go to the most recent (top) bullet items under “SCOTUSblog Coverage”.
Chief Justice Roberts will declare those states who did not set up ACA government exchanges to be in conflict of the law, no matter what the law says or what states rights are under the constitution. This will be the courts finding because the constitution is no longer the law of the land as we can all clearly see. The Supreme Court does what it is told, just like the US Congress.
Just like Roberts did in the last ruling, Kennedy is showing that the court will again RE-WRITE the law, ignoring the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN.
NOT ONE OF THESE QUESTIONS is dealing with the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN!
By re-writing law (like POTUS does), we have not one, but TWO supposedly co-equal branches of government assuming the responsibilities of the third (Congress).
THUS, the words of any law - MEAN NOTHING!
It’s over folks, it’s over. Constitution? What’s that got to do with anything.
This one’s settled already.
Turn the lights out when you leave.......
“Obama might not even have to blackmail Roberts this time.”
One time lasts forever.
Roberts is a traitor first class.
Kagan just said something along the lines of focusing on the context of text or what it intended, not the actual text as written!
Wow, what a hack..
The ACA did not include any usual Severability Clause. A monumental oversight error by peelousi and dingyharry rushing to pass nobamacare.
My understanding is that if any part of ACA is deemed unconstitutional, the whole law must go back to Congress for correction. All Boner and the Turtle have to do is sit on the ball and let the clock run out and nobamacare suffocates.
With the whole damn thing actually hanging in the balance, look for the lib side to do all they can to save nobamacare. We may see a 5 to 4 letting these subsidy issues stand, but will be surprised if its 6 to 3 and include Roberts.
Wow, what a hack.
She, and the other liberals on the court, also argued about standing. It was shot down fairly well until even they stood back and agreed that there was standing by default because of the 1st ruling making the penalty a tax. Everyone is under the tax code. Everyone has standing.
Justice Kennedy pressed Mr. Carvin on multiple occasions about whether the challengers’ reading of the subsidy provision of the health law would be problematic under the Supreme Court’s 2012 health-care ruling. There, the court struck down the ACA’s planned expansion of Medicaid, saying Congress put too much financial pressure on the states to accept the law’s plan to cover more low-income individuals under the government insurance program.Justice Kennedy said that if Mr. Carvin is right and the insurance subsidy provision requires states to establish their own insurance exchanges in order to get federal subsidies, then that interpretation could raise the same concern about the federal government pressuring the states.
Let's assume Justice Kennedy's position prevails. There are two ways to even the field. Subsidies for everyone or subsidies for no one.
Does the Supreme Court create subsidies for federal exchanges without statutory foundation (subsidies for everyone)? Or does the Supreme Court strike down the statutory subsidies for state exchanges (subsidies for no one)?
All the updates I’m reading point to ‘too much water under the bridge’, i.e., to find for the plaintiff would be too painful for too many parties, so screw the letter of the law, we find for the defendent.
A ruling just like this on illegal police stops happened here in my town 15 years ago and O’Connor said while she agreed with the case’s merit, rolling back the all the tickets written over the years would be too disruptive to all 50 states, so, sorry about that.
If they strike down the subsidies all around, I can’t imagine the government would require those who were eligible to pay back the money they’ve already been credited. That would be an economic catastrophe, as millions of Americans would suddenly face tax bills of many thousands of dollars. Not to mention the fact that their Obamacare would be unaffordable going forward.
SCOTUS will bend over backwards to prevent this scenario. I expect a ruling favorable to Obamacare. The court’s rulings are outcome-based now, and have been for some time. The law is not important anymore. They will figure out something to save this.
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.