Posted on 10/25/2017 3:17:44 PM PDT by Innovative
A federal judge in California on Wednesday denied a request from 19 attorneys general across the country to force the Trump administration to resume funding of cost-sharing payments under the Affordable Care Act.
The ruling leaves intact President Trump’s decision earlier this month to immediately end the payments that reimburse insurers for discounts the law requires them to give lower-income customers with health plans through ACA marketplaces. The attorneys general, from 18 states and the District, were seeking a judicial order that would have maintained the funding.
In his decision, Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California wrote that resuming the payments to insurers “would be counterproductive.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Anyone know who appointed the judge?
illegal payments....
More winning.
Why is he an “honest judge”?
His ruling was based on whether or not the payments would be worthwhile or not. THAT IS A LEGISLATIVE ISSUE.
He did not rule that the payments could not be restored because they violated the Appropriations clause of the Constitution, which is the ONLY issue that is of any relevance to an Article III judge.
“On July 25, 2013, President Obama nominated Chhabria to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Chhabria
This federal judge is a hero as far as I am concerned.
I consider him an honest judge precisely because he ruled based on the law, not politics, as some of the others have been doing.
...Anyone know who appointed the judge?
He used to be a City Attorney in of all places, Marin County.
Requires???? I thought the reimbursements were deemed unconstitutional?
Obama
Not so fast on the honest judge part. The message was sent out with the SCOTUS mooting the travel ban under the Munsingwear doctrine.
Too bad the next stop is the 9th circus. They ought to have an injunction decree by Friday.
An Obama appointment, I believe.
He did NOT rule based on the law.
He ruled based on his OPINION about the utility of the payments, and whether or not they would accomplish a meaningful public purpose, neither of which are any of his business.
The judge should have said...err...I’m a just, why are you bringing!e a spending request?
Ruling: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/3202/Dkt.-76-Order-Denying-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf
The important part is he doesn’t think it likely the AGs will win so he can’t give them an injunction to require the payments resume.
Oh boy... that’s bad news...I wonder why they took it there... Banana Republic status approaches
The whole reason the libs file in federal courts in kalifornia and hawaii is so that all appeals are through the 9th circus.
None of the judge’s business. The judge chose wisely.
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.