Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia And Company May Have Already Shown Their Hand On Obamacare Subsidies
TPM.com ^ | July 24, 2014 | Dylan Scott

Posted on 07/24/2014 9:44:26 AM PDT by Resettozero

Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court might have already tipped their hand on the latest substantial legal threat to Obamacare, according to one Yale law professor. And if they did, it would be good news for the Obama administration.

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that Obamacare's language did not allow people shopping on HealthCare.gov to access tax credits if they purchase insurance through the federal website. If that decision were to become law, affecting the 36 states served by the federal exchange, it would strip subsidies from nearly 5 million people and send their premiums skyrocketing. Without some sort of administrative rescue from the Obama administration, it would significantly gut the law.

Another federal appeals court in Virginia ruled the opposite way on the same day. Legal analysts have said it is at least possible that the case will end up in front of the Supreme Court, which largely upheld Obamacare in 2012. But the court's conservative streak has struck down some of the law's other provisions.

Abbe Gluck, a law professor at Yale University, highlighted some passages this week for a piece for Politico that showed how the court's conservative justices seemed to have already interpreted the issue in the 2012 ruling.

"It was Justice Scalia himself ... who interpreted the health reform statute precisely this way in the 2012 health reform case," Gluck wrote, "holistically, and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike."

Though they would have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional as a whole, the justices did not, according to Gluck's analysis, appear to even consider that the tax credits would not be available through HealthCare.gov. In fact, she argued, they seemed to assume exactly the opposite.

(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aca; lawsuit; obamacre; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
FWIW...as predications go.
1 posted on 07/24/2014 9:44:26 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

But that wasn’t the argument they were asked to decide. Now it WILL be....and that could change their interpretation.


2 posted on 07/24/2014 9:50:52 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
If it is struck down, which is no sure thing, it will have less to do with luck, conservative drift or anything of the sort than it will ObaMao's dogged insistence to push the envelope to the maximum extent possible and poke his enemies in the eye with a sharp stick.

Remember, even the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't rooted in the original bill, but in administrative overreach to expand the scope of the original bill.

3 posted on 07/24/2014 9:51:12 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Abbe Gluck, the Yale prof who is trying to publicly announce how Scalia will rule, is on record as thinking the case against Obamacare was “weak” while she ALSO acknowledged the death-panel law was sloppily written. See a post by her here:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-congress-works-and-obamacare.html?m=1


4 posted on 07/24/2014 10:00:17 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

“... and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike.”

If that is what the Justice said, it means he will rule based on the clear text of the law says.


5 posted on 07/24/2014 10:02:50 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
Now it WILL be....and that could change their interpretation.

If they agree to take it. I don't think that the DC Circuit's ruling will stand because the it's certain that the Administration will request a rehearing by the full Circuit Court, most of whom were appointed by Democrats. So it's almost a certainty that the full court will rule for the Administration. Once it reaches the Supreme Court they will most likely punt it and refuse to take the case.

6 posted on 07/24/2014 10:08:53 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

The outcome of the “subsidy” issue does not mean anything in the big scheme of things except for timing. Upholding the federal subsidies means the ACA continues down its current path towards chaos and eventual single payer. Overturning the federal subsidies in the ACA means chaos and single payer comes quicker.


7 posted on 07/24/2014 10:10:14 AM PDT by buckalfa (Long time caller --- first time listener.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
'Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan [...] "But could the conservative justices get around what they said? Probably," he continued. "The four dissenters may have been speaking too generally about the ACA to consider themselves bound to any particular view on the specific statutory question" raised in the tax-credit lawsuit.'
8 posted on 07/24/2014 10:10:29 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

This is Bullsh*t. Reeks of desperation on the part of the author.


9 posted on 07/24/2014 10:11:48 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"But that wasn’t the argument they were asked to decide. Now it WILL be....and that could change their interpretation."

It wasn't even an interpretation. He was making an assumption purely for the purposes of argument. If I were to say, "If we were to assume that George Washington never lived we may conclude that America would have never won the Revolutionary war", that doesn't mean I'm concluding that George Washington never lived.

10 posted on 07/24/2014 10:13:47 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
If they agree to take it. I don't think that the DC Circuit's ruling will stand because the it's certain that the Administration will request a rehearing by the full Circuit Court, most of whom were appointed by Democrats. So it's almost a certainty that the full court will rule for the Administration. Once it reaches the Supreme Court they will most likely punt it and refuse to take the case.

We need to revise the textbooks. There are really only 2 branches of Government:

1. The Executive Branch

2. The Legislative Branch consisting of


11 posted on 07/24/2014 10:15:44 AM PDT by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

I just keep wondering, how did the Democrats ask the CBO to score the bill? Did they ask the CBO to score it with exclusively individual state exchanges issuing subsidies? If they did, this would indicate their intent with the language used in drafting the bill. Anybody know how we could find out?


12 posted on 07/24/2014 10:27:16 AM PDT by 12chachacha (Sucker??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

doesn’t this proves that any law negotiated with obama is pointless, if he could simply rewrite his own law. Obama will simply ignore or rewrite any immigration laws he doesn’t like. Any GOP who think Obama could be trusted are either really stupid or traitors


13 posted on 07/24/2014 10:34:11 AM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 12chachacha

Call your Congressman or one of your Senators (if theyre GOP) and ask the staffer who answers that their office look into it. Make sure you mention that you are a constituent.

They should punt the request to the Congressional Research Service, which should run the issue to ground. The scoring request, the methodology for scoring and the report from CBO should be part of the public record.


14 posted on 07/24/2014 10:34:31 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 12chachacha

I think most people (both sides of the aisle) assumed that the states would set up their own exchanges. The most obvious request to CBO would be: “Score the bill on the assumption that every state sets up its own exchange.”

It’s not surprising the Circuit Courts differed. They have to figure out what Congress was thinking, on a subject that Congress wasn’t thinking about.


15 posted on 07/24/2014 10:39:07 AM PDT by Eagle Forgotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Ignore Scalia and the three other Constitutionalist judges. The dead-soul Roberts will be ordered by his masters who hold his blackmail file to rule with the leftist anti-Constitutionalist judges. Whenever the globalist need a ruling they simple remind Roberts of the blackmail.


16 posted on 07/24/2014 10:44:14 AM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
...assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike.

The fact is that the statutory text does NOT make subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike, as a matter of fact, the statutory text SPECIFIC lists "stated created exchanges" as the benefactor of the subsidies.

So, this writer and law professor are, at best, HOPING that Scalia and others will read the text in their favor. But if what he is saying is correct, then Scalia and the others will HAVE to see that the statutory text plainly does not treat these exchanges the same and therefore, would HAVE to rule against the federal exchanges receiving subsidies.

And, contrary to what people think, this only HELPS the people in those states! The law specifically states that if people cannot buy affordable healthcare plans, which do not cost more than a certain percentage of your paycheck, then you can purchase lesser, more affordable healthcare plans which are no longer subject to the Obamacare mandates and requirements and you cannot be punished by the IRS for doing so!
17 posted on 07/24/2014 10:47:40 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

If people were to lose their subsidies on Obamacare,wouldn’t that benefit those who are paying for those susidies?


18 posted on 07/24/2014 11:04:54 AM PDT by oldtech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
The outcome of the “subsidy” issue does not mean anything in the big scheme of things except for timing.

Hope you are wrong.
19 posted on 07/24/2014 11:09:24 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource
This is Bullsh*t. Reeks of desperation on the part of the author.

I wouldn't doubt that. But would you find an example or two, since I didn't get those vibes?
20 posted on 07/24/2014 11:11:30 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson