Posted on 11/07/2014 10:59:44 AM PST by PJ-Comix
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act, a move that will again thrust the law into a high-profile battle before the high court.
The Supreme Court's move is somewhat surprising, considering there is still no split in the lower, circuit courts. But the high court agreed to King v. Burwell, a case in which the Fourth Circuit court upheld an IRS rule that extends the distribution of health insurance subsidies to states served by the federal insurance marketplace.
The challenge to the law is viewed as having the potential to cripple Obamacare in the 36 states where the federal government provides subsidies for low-income people to buy health insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I predict that the Supremes will decide 6-3 that the plain words of the law mean what those words say — ONLY states with a state exchange can have subsidies paid for their residents.
And I also predict that following that SC decision there will arise, WITHIN THE STUPID PARTY, a push to expand subsidies to the federal exchange states. Within the federal exchange states there will arise pressure to establish state exchanges to replace the federal exchange so those residents can be subsidized.
Conservatives MUST not support such changes since they are meant only to resuscitate the rotting corpse that is Obamacare. Democrats own 100% of that rotting corpse; let’s not add Republican ownership.
Maybe the court will strike down the “tax” because it did not originate in the house. — maybe, with sugar on top?
Even more than Rush or Hannity taking about it—My hope is the new Congress will get the ball rolling to get the darn thing repealed.
I’ll call it good news, but I don’t want to get set up for another let down. ACA shouldn’t even be law right now ...
It’s too soon to repeal the law. Too many people still think it means free stuff. It has to cause real heartache before the public will see repealing it as a good thing.
In the meantime, if it goes on much longer, it will be too imbedded to repeal.
It’s a real dilemma.
When will the Supremes rule on this? Next June?
****
In early September, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed to rehear the case, taking away a split between the circuits. A three-judge panel had thrown out the subsidies as invalid, but now the full, 13-judge panel will rehear the case. The math on the full panel is much better for the administration, as it consists of eight Democratic-appointed justices and just five who are Republican-appointed.
****
So much for the Rule of Law. What have we come to as a nation where the law is trumped by politics?
But, give that, the fact that the Supreme Court is going to hear the case is a very positive development. The law is, in fact, quite clear in declaring that only the states can offer subsidies. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise it will be a very sad day for this nation.
Drudge to headline this story in 5...4...3...2...
I agree 6-3. Roberts will HAVE to agree with the exact wording in the law.
And I agree with your comment on the GOP.
If the GOP enacts law to provides subsidies beyond what the democrats enacted, then I will officially sever the last of my ties to the GOP.
But if we can past the SCOTUS (likely) and RINOs congressment (50-50 chance), then Obamacare is toast!
...”if it goes on much longer, it will be too imbedded to repeal”...
That’s exactly how the Obama administration operates....it isn’t about if or not Constitutional for them...it’s how much time before anything they get out there takes to get advanced far enough along that it can’t be stopped.
Obama said he would be “busy” these next two years...you can expect he’ll do everything he said he’d do regardless of the backlash.
That is a different case that has yet to work its way up.
The same holds true for Obama's Dreamer amnesty and impending other executive amnesty for millions. How do you unring a bell? It gets very difficult to undo a law or an executive order. You need to fight the constituencies that benefit from them. You are taking away benefits.
Actually it was already headlined on Drudge. I just didn’t see it before.
I just watched a CSPAN 4 hour presentation on this. The fact that they took the case is HUGE news. This is an expedited request that has not fully worked it’s way through all the lower courts. Either they took the case to rule as the Plaintiffs wish, OR they are taking the case to spank the lower court who may have gamed the system to avoid a so called split in the lower courts.
I just saw a report that the SC will argue the case in March with a ruling in late June. This could make moot any congressional attempts to repeal or chip away at the ObamaCare law.
I just heard it on the canned news segment on the radio (meaning most of the nation will hear the exact same segment).
It characterized the issue as a ‘technicality’.
B.
S.
Vigorous enforcement? Strip out executive "exemptions", "extensions", and "waivers"?
Sounds to me like it'd be the best way to make everyone realize what a crap-bag ObamaCare is.
The really ironic thing is that, the website's costs alone (~$2.1 billion) divided by the US population (316.1 Million) is $6.6 million — that's right, for what it's cost on the website alone we could have given every person in the country a check for $6.5 million dollars and come out ahead.
That's how corrupt the system is.
Not a technicality IF the SC rules that the law means what it saws which is that ONLY state exchanges eligible for subsidies. Jonathan Gruber and Jonathan Cohn already stated as much.
Adding to your point. There is a record of debate on the floor of congress where this was discussed. It is quite clear that this is a deliberate part of the law...and not a ‘scribner’s error’.
Frankly, the administration is very blatantly violating their own crowning jewel law.
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.