FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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?
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.
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.
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)?
I thought their job was to call the balls and strikes.
Now it seems they are supposed to find a way to make sense of out of nonsense and then call it "constitutional"?
Obamacare is here to stay. There was no separation clause in Obamacare so one part ruled unconstitutional brings down the whole thing and we all know how Roberts will vote.
The statute provides that insurance shall be made available on exchanges to “qualified individuals,” and further defines a “qualified individual” to mean, “with respect to an Exchange, an individual who” both wants to enroll in a qualified plan, and also “resides in the State that established the Exchange.”IMO, prior to the 2012 ACA ruling that allowed states to refuse to set up exchanges that no one, including Congress, envisioned that the states would NOT establish exchanges. Congress believed they had the right to force individuals to buy a commercial product under their power to regulate commerce. They had no reservations about the states not complying.
The government, as well as Justices Breyer and Kagan, argue that if the only way for a state to “establish” an exchange is to create it on its own, then there would be no “qualified individuals” in states that failed to do so, and therefore there would be nobody on the exchanges (and, as Justice Kagan surmised, no product to sell on the exchanges).So, it depends on what the definition of "establish" is and not what the definition of "state" is? Unbelievable.