Yeah, it'll be different THIS time. /s
Posted on 11/10/2014 4:25:16 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
The Supreme Court is taking up another Obamacare case—one that could devastate the health care law's coverage expansion.
The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues that the subsidies—which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received—should only be available in a handful of states. The Supreme Court is taking up another Obamacare case—one that could devastate the health care law's coverage expansion.
The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues that the subsidies—which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received—should only be available in a handful of states.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Scrivener's Error.
I had to look that up. Which was probably your intent. ;).
Here is what I found:
***
Scrivener’s error - Legal Definition
n
Mistake by preparer of a document that results in intent of the parties being thwarted; basis for not enforcing the document or reforming it. See mutual mistake.
Webster's New World Law Dictionary
***
I don't believe the Supremes will go down that path. If they did, it would set a precedent that would allow many laws to be tossed aside whenever the mood of the political class made a U-Turn.
It would mean the end of law.
Hmmmm. You may be on to something.
Even if that’s true, enough people know about the adoptions to make it a “ho-hum”.
He got a life time appointment and this is a very old charge. How does it hurt him to the point he has to resign or be further “blackmailed”? The story first surfaced prior to his confirmation.
Hard to believe that it didn’t derail him then but is blackmail fodder now.
Unless there is something else....
I believe most of us will not be holding our breath. We have done that too many times. I am sure they will find a way to rewrite the text.
If SCOTUS decides that the law must be enforced as written, then the remedy is to amend the law. Therein lies the problem for the Dems.
There will never be any USSC “recommendation” and your prediction on the timing is way off.
The USSC granted cert — accepted the case for hearing. Briefings, followed by oral argument, probably in March. There will probably be no ruling before June-July of ‘15 — when most rulings from this court term are released.
There is zero possibility that it’s “finished” before the new Congress is sworn in January.
The USSC won’t recommend anything, they’ll simply rule upon whether subsidies provided by the federal exchange are contrary to the law as written and are illegal. That’s it.
If they (as they should, IMO) rule that the federal subsidies can’t be paid to people living in the 34 states that didn’t set up an “exchange” under the law, it will effectively kill this misbegotten socialist adventure by President Chickenshit.
Can’t happen too soon, but it won’t be by January.
Odds are good that the USSC will blow it up. Obviously, 4 Justices (the previous dissenters in NFIB v. Sebelius) voted to hear it, maybe Roberts, too.
They certainly didn’t have to hear it, there’s no split in the Circuit courts (if you assume that the DC Circuit will overturn their previous 3-judge decision when they re-hear it en banc.) But, the USSC apparently didn’t want to wait and put it off a year.
That’s a pretty good indication that either the 4 NFIB dissenters want to force Roberts to atone or Roberts himself wants to atone for his previous goofy “tax” justification idiocy in NFIB. He certainly is enabled and encouraged to do so by the recent election results. Which should have nothing to do with anything, but probably has and will.
All in all, very, very positive. Maybe a pile of Congressional votes between Jan and June on the individual mandate and “keeping your doctor” and “keeping your insurance” (3 participation problems) and the medical device tax (a revenue problem) will totally cripple the monstrous atrocity called the ACA before the USSC gets around to ruling, but that remains to be seen.
Who knows? Maybe the massive soon-to-be announced rate increases will provide enough voter outrage to generate veto-proof margins for repeal in January. That would be the best outcome of all.
The easiest out for the SC would be to rule in favor of the suit, then suspend its ruling for 6 months to give Congress time to rewrite the law - if they choose. The GOP would go along “for the children”, and nothing would change.
When there is a question of intent, the legislation should be sent back to the legislature for clarification. Always.
The Supremes will read the clear language, and declare it is not their place to make law, (I know, I know...) just to interpret it. The law would then have to go back to the legislature, to be made more clear. (Oh this is so sweet to contemplate).
They will do so, because it’s a chance to redeem themselves, it would be correct jurisprudence, and the law is so unpopular, and they all know it.
Yeah, it'll be different THIS time. /s
I have wishful thinking too, but reality is what you speak. I am convinced that Roberts voted the way he did because he thought Obamacare would be popular. So much for that.
Just wait until the insured get the RETROACTIVE bill to pay back all the illegal subsidies. Tens of thousands of dollars bill to millions of the most poor Americans. What a horror show.
After the legal gymnastics that Roberts went through to declare that Americans could be forced to purchase insurance, I’m not holding my breath.
After the legal gymnastics that Roberts went through to declare that Americans could be forced to purchase insurance, I’m not holding my breath.
The USSC never makes “statements.” About anything.
Even when they decline to hear a case, they don’t say why, they simply decline. Which means that there were 3 or fewer votes to hear it. For whatever (whether one or many) reason(s). Everyone else is left to puzzle out the split.
They only make “statements” about cases in the form of a decision — a majority opinion (and any concurrences) and any dissenting opinion(s) (and any concurrences.)
Any Justice who wants to make a “statement” is free to do so as part of the opinion on the decision. And they often do so. But, that’s an individual thing. And, that’s just dicta of no legal import. Not binding on the USSC or anyone else.
The LAST thing I want the USSC doing is issuing formal “statements” about anything. Ever. It ain’t their (constitutional) job.
NO,
I had heard the story shortly after the obammycare ruling.
Do I really believe it? NO.
But nothing with obammy inc. would surprise me.
Gruber’s testimony should carry less weight then the Senate finance committee... which was just as explicit.
“not as long as obammy is blackmailing Roberts over his illegal adoption of 2 kids.”
Please show me that proof? If we are going to sit here and accuse the chief justice of the supreme court of fixing the Obamacare debate, I need to see more than conjecture.
There is another hypothesis:
Roberts is playing a long game on this. Having made clear the “it’s a fine” justification is an abject failure, he suggested and allowed the “it’s a tax” ruling because the general issue would return on that basis, at which point a solid checkmate totally destroys it. Not doing so would have established mushier conditions whereby 0care would have survived further assault.
One does not join SCOTUS by being stupid. Misguided, perhaps, but not stupid.
My recollection is that, back when this case was decided by the 3 Judge DC Circuit and then appealed en banc to the new Progressive majority created by stacking the court in the wake of the nuclear option, a LOT of folks said SCOTUS wouldn’t touch this at all.
So the fact that they are gives me hope. It takes four Justices to agree to hear a case. I can’t see all four of the anti-Obamacare Justices agreeing to hear this unless they felt Roberts was at least open minded if not on board.
Particularly Kennedy - he’s not the type to want to visit a case under those circumstances. The four Liberals certainly wouldn’t.
Being a SC justice apparently means being able to cloak partisan preferences in high power legalese.
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.