Skip to comments.
Scalia And Company May Have Already Shown Their Hand On Obamacare Subsidies
TPM.com ^
| July 24, 2014
| Dylan Scott
Posted on 07/24/2014 9:44:26 AM PDT by Resettozero
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: 4rcane
Doesnt this prove that any law negotiated with obama is pointless, if he could simply rewrite his own law?
Already has, in my non-legal opinion. Your lawyer may vary.
To: Eagle Forgotten
Its not surprising the Circuit Courts differed. They have to figure out what Congress was thinking, on a subject that Congress wasnt thinking about.
Pass it to read it. Don't let them ever forget.
To: Resettozero
They change the law on a whim “as the HHS Secretary may direct” all the time. They can change that too I suppose.
23
posted on
07/24/2014 11:17:48 AM PDT
by
GeronL
(Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
To: Resettozero
Obama needs Congress and the Senate to approve any changes to law.
But then we're talking about Obama here, and the crony brigade.
All this illegality will be struck down once the power shifts.
Damn, wrong again, we're talking about the new GOP here.
I'm not giving up!
24
posted on
07/24/2014 11:19:34 AM PDT
by
MaxMax
(Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
To: InterceptPoint
Revise that.
There are really only 2 branches of Government:
1. The Democrats
2. The Republicans
The former Constitutional branches have been subverted by the parties. Law and precedent no longer matter. The only thing that matters now is protecting the viability of the party in power. To that end, they corrupt the Constitutional branches to justify whatever the party in power needs done at that moment to protect its interests.
-PJ
25
posted on
07/24/2014 11:20:52 AM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
To: Political Junkie Too
There are really only 2 branches of Government:
1. The Democrats
2. The Republicans
By your standard, there is now only one.
To: Resettozero
27
posted on
07/24/2014 11:32:54 AM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
To: 12chachacha
I just keep wondering, how did the Democrats ask the CBO to score the bill? Did they ask the CBO to score it with exclusively individual state exchanges issuing subsidies?
My other post took a guess that they asked for scoring on the assumption that all states would have exchanges. Thanks to the link provided by SoFloFreeper, I now learn I was wrong. According to the (pro-Obamacare) law professor writing at http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-congress-works-and-obamacare.html?m=1 the CBO did not assume all state exchanges but did assume subsidies for everyone:
The government and amici have picked up the CBO argument in this case, including providing a letter to Congress from CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testifying to CBOs initial and ongoing understanding that the subsidies would not be for the state exchanges alone. Opponents have offered nothing as a counterargument except for the fact that CBOs initial calculation assumed, as did most others policymakers, that most of the exchanges would be state operated (because that is what the federalists now opposing the ACA wanted!). (my emphasis)
So that argument turns out to be one on the pro-subsidy side.
To: 12chachacha
I’ve read that they deliberately put the language in because by doing so it caused the CBO to get the number under a trillion.
So yes it’s the law, and the IRS decision to give subsidies through federal exchanges amounts to a federal agency spending taxpayer money which is exclusively up to Congress.
They are trying a bait and switch.
29
posted on
07/24/2014 11:52:19 AM PDT
by
Clump
( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
To: Resettozero
Abbe Gluck’s opinion is just spin. Seems to me that Scalia’s point was conditional on a premise that can’t be met. Scalia will know that.
Justice Roberts ruled that Congress was empowered to create ACA through its power to “tax”.
But taxes and tax subsidies must be levied equally. For example, the federal government cannot allow Earned Income Credits for residents “Blue” states, and disallow Earned Income Credits for residents of “Red” states. If they could, they would.
But ACA allows or denies federal tax subsidies based on which state a person resides in. How can this be “equal treatment under the law”?
To: Chewbarkah
But ACA allows or denies federal tax subsidies based on which state a person resides in.
Hope it gets "interpreted" that way!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson