His illegally adopted kids might be grown up, but he's still a blackmail-able homo.
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 ...
His kids must be almost grown up by now so I don't see how he can be blackmailed again.
And you imagine the Congress is going to pass that?
One of the messages coming, loudly, out of this ruling needs to be that Obama stacked the appeals court to save Obamacare.
The truth is that if this ruling is overturned en banc it’s a pretty big chipmtajen out of the already dwindling credibility of the Judiciary and “the system” as a whole.
Dare we hope that the wheels of this administration are finally coming off!
Google "federal circuit en banc" for a list of en banc decisions.
As for happening regularly, I was referring to the request for an en banc review/hearing and not the review itself because that is what your original post referenced.
That doesn't fly at all. It was not accidental omission. The language was clearly written to punish states which didn't get on board. It was specifically included on multiple versions.
What good is the power of the purse strings when they won’t use it . . . too dang afraid of the next election.
You’re exactly right about the power of the purse.
I think many of them have been threatened and they can make noises but don’t dare cross the line.
My guess is that the Obama administration will simply claim that they are bailing out the insurance companies as promised.
The real import of this bill is that it complicates the coverage of the illegals, with or without amnesty. If they send illegals to states that depended on the federal exchange. Of course, most of the illegals would all be put on Medicaid and get it free.
Dare we hope that the wheels of this administration are finally coming off!
All the lug nuts are loose and the tires are wobbling.
Full month, not month.
By Presidential Appointer, today’s case was decided Bush/Bush in the majority versus Carter.
The full court is (a hint of where the full court *might* go):
(5) Reagan
(2) HWBush
(3) GWBush
(10)
(1) Carter
(3) Clinton
(4) Ø
(8)
Ironically, if that theory is true Roberts’ kids would be “Dreamers” with protected status under DACA.
And the reason Congress had to do it that way is because the Supreme Court has the ruled that fedgov cannot "commandeer" states to do something.
So the Congress can't simply order a state to do something.
Thus, the carrot of subsidies to get the states to set up healthcare exchanges.
Only the Federal Appellate court may call for en banc. In this case it would be 17 judges that comprise that district.
But the subject opinion is from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, appealed from the D.C. District Court. That's my understanding; I'm not an attorney or an expert.
D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 35(b) states, "A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc."
Another ‘glitch’ !
I think we’re going to see a show down.
Ok, so a party line en banc split results in the decision being upheld 10-8.
However, there probably are at least a couple GOP appointees who have a track record of being peeled off on things like this.
If only we had conservative congressmen with actual balls, to strike hard while the beast is wounded. But alas, we only have kept eunuchs.
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.