Obamacare Is Headed For Another Supreme Court Showdown, And It Puts The Law In 'Dangerous Territory'

Business Insider ^ | November 7, 2014 | Brett LoGiurato

[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.

[etcb]

There is a record of debate on the floor of congress where this was discussed.

I think the court acknowledged in their decision that King had the better argument on this point but decided for the government anyway.

The House and Senate are Constitutionally established institutions and are still in business. Who would be better able to explain their intent than Congress itself. A sense of the Congress resolution could be enacted by a simple majority and could confirm that the simple language of the bill accurately reflected the intent of Congress. As a Sense of Congress Resolution it would not require signature of the President and, even if passed by only one vote, would carry the weight of the entire body. Since the executive branch is a party to the case, it would not be out of order for the Congress to also make a submission. It would be difficult for the Court to rule that Congress meant one thing when it, as a body, states it meant something else.

[brydic1]

It is often said that the Supremes follow election returns. We will soon see if that is true. All the newly elected senators and representatives made repeal of Obamacare a prime election issue.

[etcb]

Your post 33 was updated while I was typing my post 41. I should have waited a couple of minutes and just agreed with you. You are right on point. I hope our representatives will take heed.

[lepton]

You might want to recheck your math.

[steve86]

My goodness; all that long-form stuff when you can do an approximation in your head in one second and get 6 or 7.

[Fantasywriter]

Here’s where the architect of the healthcare law/obamacare explains it; no state exchanges, no subsidies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBAHvX1WdWc

[lepton]

A better argument is to divide the cost by those who were newly able to sign up.

[House Atreides]

“My goodness; all that long-form stuff when you can do an approximation in your head in one second and get 6 or 7.”
*****************************************************************************************************
LOL But that wouldn’t meet “common core” standards.

[Fantasywriter]

‘There is a record of debate on the floor of congress where this was discussed.’

“I’m sure you are right but I have no idea how to go find it. I would if I could.”

This is the clip of the congressional debate where Baucus is said to specify that credits only apply to state exchanges. I’m not sure it clarifies it all that much, but this IS the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC3lxb2WBYo

[InterceptPoint]

Thanks for the link. It’s amazing that something this important received so little attention during the legislative process.

[X-spurt]

Don’t think this is the “Origination Clause”, just yet. It will come in due time and if it does while the GOP is the majority, that will be the end of nobamacare.

I am convinced that “Origination Clause” was the poison pill reason Roberts declared it a tax.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Thanks for the ping. I like your wording better. Republicans should think seriously about such a filing. Come springtime, after unyielding replays of the Jonathans on video proclaiming the State participation was an intended part of the law, we will be treated to six months of democrats either denying the clear facts or proclaiming their inadequacies as legislators.

Either way, Tuesday's election results are further validated.

[Fantasywriter]

You’re welcome. But do notice one thing about the clip. Baucus refers to all the amendments the GOP will be able to add. However, the only way the bill could pass was to short circuit ALL debate and amendments. Of course Baucus could not, at that time, have imagined the GOP would be allowed exactly zero amendments. But that’s how it ended up.

So while I totally agree w you that something of this magnitude should have received more scrutiny, we have only Reid and Pelosi, & of course Obama, to thank for it being otherwise.

[X-spurt]

Constitutional Law through the SCOTUS is Chess my FRiend, not Checkers.

[Political Junkie Too]

It can't be just the plain language of the law that they look at. It has to also be the debate that led to that final language.

Everyone knows that the bill was changed in debate to remove subsidies to federal exchanges as a compromise to get the bill passed. As I've posted before, we cannot allow a system where the Democrat get to negotiate in bad faith, knowing that whatever compromises they make in legislation will be reversed in the courts, allowing Democrats to get what they want in the end regardless.

SCOTUS must hold the legislature to the intent of their words by taking the debate and compromises into account.

-PJ

[Personal Responsibility]

How can this be done? The House / Senate that wrote / passed this law doesn’t exist anymore. Many of them have been voted out of office for just this law!

The only thing that matters is what the law says.

[House Atreides]

“It can’t be just the plain language of the law that they look at. It has to also be the debate that led to that final language....”
*******************************************************************************************************
Sorry, but the way it’s SUPPOSED to be is a multi-step process. First the language of the law itself is examined and if that language is clear the legislation is implemented according to the actual words of the law. Only if the language of the law is ambiguous do we go to “legislative intent”, first by examining the “Committee Report” for the legislation.

The language of the subsidy portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is as clear as piss on a Sunday morning so no need to go further.

I don’t have time to track down the committee report for the ACA now, but I did in the past and found nothing to contradict the plain language of the law itself.

http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-105/no-2/2013-7.pdf

[OneWingedShark]

My goodness; all that long-form stuff when you can do an approximation in your head in one second and get 6 or 7.

Well, when you screw up that badly -- yes.
(Quite good for showing exactly where the error occurred.)

[Sgt_Schultze]

The House and the Senate are ongoing bodies. Each can speak for itself by majority vote. What you are saying is that only the membership of the body which enacted a law can have a legitimate opinion. Only the current membership can speak for the body.

[Political Junkie Too]

Then why bother consulting the Federalist Papers when a Constitutional issue arises? If it gets to SCOTUS, the have to look at multiple places to ensure that they are right, because there is nobody after them.

They go back to the debates that crafted the Constitution order to understand original intent. The same is true here. They have to go back to the debate to understand the original intent for the prevention of subsidies for federal exchanges.

They can't just be a "fix" for Democrats who want to roll Republicans with bad-faith negotiating.

-PJ