FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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more than Rush or Hannity taking about it—My hope is the new Congress will get the ball rolling to get the darn thing repealed.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.
****
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.
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.
Roberts is Souter II.
Perhaps most important for court-watchers, the plaintiffs further noted that contrary to the government’s claims, “there is still technically a conflict between the two Circuits.” That’s because under the D.C. Circuit’s rules, the decision to grant en banc review “vacated the panel’s judgment, but not its opinion.” So yes, Virginia, there’s still a circuit split.
Yes, Virginia, There Is Still a Circuit Split between Halbig and King
Forbes
10/14/2014
Michael F. Cannon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3217242/posts
Just wonder will the Roberts rewrite the law in order to make it somewhat constitutional again in order to declare it constitutional
Informed commentary and all court filings and judicial opinions are available here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/11/07/king-halbig-et-al-head-to-the-supreme-court/
Dear SCOTUS, don’t you DARE rewrite the existing law!
What the congress needs to do it null the mandatory purchase of healthcare. Then it becomes useless.
For this to work the Federal injustices would actually have to read the law. I think that is a bit beyond many if not most of them.
I’m wondering why a court case hasn’t been filed citing the fact that it didn’t originate in the House since it was deemed a tax according to the SCOTUS?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.
Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.