Obama’s Law Professor: "I Wouldn’t Bet" on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge

National Review Online ^ | July 11, 2014 | Joel Gehrke

[Biggirl]

President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he “wouldn’t bet the family farm” on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts.

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”

[Ouchthatonehurt]

Your lips, God’s ear professor.

Think you can get it right this time John?

[RIghtwardHo]

Don’t agree because of the recent appointees to the D.C. Cir. While the panel, moments ago, ruled against ODimwit, the full bench will rule for him. I also don’t see SCOTUS even taking this one.

[cotton1706]

Democrat nominees now have a majority on the DC Circuit thanks to Reid eliminating the filibuster. The full court may overturn the panel’s ruling.

[Biggirl]

Sure about that?

Get some info and get back to me please! Thank-you!

[Biggirl]

Maybe.

[brownsfan]

The political elite want obamacare. I would bet money it survives.

[Biggirl]

I support the prof. He is telling just like it is.

[DaveA37]

The Court of Appeals shot a good sized hole in it today when they said “no” to subsidies for gubmint workers.

[brownsfan]

“I support the prof. He is telling just like it is.”

Like it should be.

How it is, is that our government is infested with a hoard of self interested elitists. Obamacare gives them the power they so deeply desire.

[rktman]

Should that be “supposed” law professor? Anybody seen those darn errant college records layin’ around anywhere? What? The were stored on lois lerner’s hard drive? Dang the luck. :>}

[CaptainK]

Don't get too excited. Tribe is an Obama lackey and would love nothing more than the permanent installation of Obamacare. Further down in the article the real agenda is explained:

And he has no patience with Tribe’s suggestion that it would be “bizarre” for Roberts to conclude that only state-based exchanges can receive subsidies.

“He’s obviously trying to coach the Supreme Court on how to rule for the government here,” Cannon counters. “He’s also either ignoring or not aware of the legislative history showing that Congress was considering all sorts of proposals that would withhold subsidies from states that didn’t establish exchanges or do other things.”

“It is clear that he has not researched the legislative history, because there is nothing bizarre about it,” Cannon says.

[Biggirl]

The more the truth is told, the more it will fall apart.

[11th_VA]

In a fair and just country, it might not survive, but Reid and Obama just packed the courts. Negotiating with the Democrats is like negotiating with Hamas.

[Biggirl]

I twitterd this article to my local conservative talkradio show host. He just read it. Good for him.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

[Biggirl]

Can you get back with some info please! Thank-you!

[nathanbedford]

My guess: the DC Court of Appeals will rehear the case en banc rationalizing the decision to do so by describing it is a matter of great public interest. Because Obama has recently stacked court with three judges whom the Republicans could not filibuster after they laid down and submitted to Majority Leader Reid's change of rules, the full court will reverse the decision below and uphold the power of the IRS to make payments to exchanges set up by the IRS.

The Supreme Court will probably take the case especially if a different Court of Appeals rules to the contrary. However, we go into the Supreme Court with four justices presold (out) and questionable characters in Chief Justice Roberts and Kennedy whom we need or the case is lost. I have far more confidence in Kennedy than I do in Roberts.

God only knows what kind of considerations will go through Robert's mind, that is, whether to redeem himself by declaring the payments unlawful or to vindicate himself by declaring them unlawful.

There is a possibility that the Supreme Court will not take up the case which will be more likely if there is no contrary decision in any other federal court and that would imply that the en banc decision which I anticipate in the DC Court of Appeals would stand in the payments would be held to be illegal. My best guess is that another Court of Appeals will agree with this decision and declare the payments illegal. If not, the high court may regard the decision below as one of statutory interpretation and not of constitutional import and therefore decline the case.

[LS]

But folks, it DOESN'T MATTER if he "funds it" anyway UNLESS the House exercises its constitutional obligations and shuts down the gubment until Zero signs off on a real budget.

To me, this shows how prescient and necessary the government shutdown was over a year ago and why this fight will still have to be fought and won.

[Huskrrrr]

Hopefully the Obamacare tornado will be over soon. Still, cleaning up the mess will take years.

[Biggirl]

Thank-you for a full explaination of the info.