It's all wrapped up in the same case, now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court below found the payments unconstitutional.
I don't know that this ruling, on it's own, is major. But it does signal that the Courts are willing to force the payments to continue to protect some state interest, after the courts said the payments were unconstitutional.
Obviously, the courts are lawless.
They've been lawless for a very long time. Liberal judges should be sh** .... wait, hu**, no, tarred and feathered first, then hu** and sh**.
That'll fix 'em.
The courts force payments for all kinds of things on all levels of government that they can’t afford and is unconstitutional. The problem is, the governments aren’t the actual actual payers, it’s the taxpayers. If the taxpayers refuse to fund the government how will they pay? Can the taxpayers appeal since they are the actual ones that are affected by these judges’ rulings? Rhetorical questions.
Seems to me, then, that those states should pony up the poayments themselves if they feel their folks are impacted. The courts do not have the power to compell the Congress to appropriate money and
I doubt the Secretary can be compelled to do so either. The power of Zerocare is in Tom Price’s hands...
I would rather see him rewrite the law wholesale...just like it was written by whats-her-face and Burwell.
I think there was a case out of California (Hollingsworth v. Perry) where the lower courts ruled against a voter approved referendum (Prop 8) and the state refused to appeal. The proponents of the referendum attempted to carry the appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Court ruled that while the State could appeal, the proponents had no standing. Sometime it just depends on whose ox is being gored.