Posted on 03/02/2015 5:44:11 AM PST by GIdget2004
Prove it, as you say so glibly
Roberts is likely having nightmares over NY Slimes and WaPo headlines the first time some subsidy recipient who ends up losing his coverage gets sick. “Chief Justice KILLED Him!” will be the screaming headline.
If the Rats write one, they’ll have enough Pubes to pass it. One way or another, the subsides will happen.
Yes, it was a stroke of genius when the Democrat Party realized they had a Presidential candidate that to criticize him would be politically incorrect. If anyone criticized their homosexual Muslim Kenyan President, they would be immediately chastised for being a homophobic Islamophobic racists.
2+2=4
he’s gay
This is a pathetic attempt to sway Judge Roberts. All Roberts has to do is point out that the purveyors of Obamacare LIED and he is off the hook.
I think you are correct. It will go: SCOTUS, no. Congress: no new law. Obama: yes.
In a sense, we are just “playing house,” a game kids used to play: You be the mother, I’ll be the child, etc. I use this term for the kibuki that constitutes running Republican candidates in a 10-to-1 Democrat district: You be the candidate, I’ll be the campaign manager, etc.
But now it’s going on at the national level in a country that is not 10-to-1 Democrat. Patriots go through the motions but it is just a game. Obama always gets his way.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
>>THAT IS A FLAT OUT LIE.<<
Yes, well when a columnist attempting a legal argument “sites” a case, he sort of loses credibility anyway, no?
In a perfect world the vote would be a 9-0 finding against providing the subsidies, together with a rebuke to the executive branch for spending billions of taxpayer dollars without authorization, accompanied by a strong suggestion that criminal acts have taken place that should be pursued by the Justice Department.
I state the above so we can see how far we’ve moved from that perfect, i.e., legal, world.
But then, maybe the Court will surprise us....
>>There is a 0% chance that Roberts will side with conservatives on this.<<
I actually think it’s more like 90-10 that the Court will find the subsidies illegal. Despite the Left’s many assertions, the clear language of the law, and its history, argue for their being found unlawful.
However, another consideration is the speed with which they took up King vs. Burwell. There was only a conflict between appeals courts because that case originally found that the subsidies were legal. The DC Court, in a 3-judge panel, found that they were illegal. That created the conflict, but then Obama packed the DC Court and after the packing the full court agreed to rehear the case. Virtually everyone knew that was going to result in a reversal, which would remove the conflict between appeals courts.
So, if the Supreme Court wanted to duck the issue, all they had to do is wait for the DC Court to reverse its own 3-judge panel. Instead, as advocated by some conservative writers, the Supreme Court hurriedly decided to take up King vs. Burwell (while the conflict still existed.)
I don’t believe they would have bothered to do that unless they had already decided that misreading the clear words of a statute was a bridge too far. But we’ll see in June or July, I guess.
Incidentally, by that time the GOP should have a solid overhaul of the healthcare mess ready to go. If they do, the screaming will fall on the Dems. If they don’t, they’ll be demagogued mercilessly.
My hope is that there is a buyers’ remorse thing kicking in - the disaster of Obama Care is known now by Roberts. I think he was naive enough not to see that coming, but he can’t escape that now.
Like I said, I’m 50-50 on it....because King is such a strong case.
I suspect that, right or wrong, Roberts will do what he thinks is right.
The issue here is whether the term “exchange established by the state,” is a term of art. If it is, then the SCOTUS may have the intellectual basis and legal authority to uphold DHS’s subsidies.
If it is not, then the plain language of the statute should prevail.
Personally, I think that the “term of art” argument should not prevail because there is no showing, such as a formal definition, that the phrase at issue is a term of art - or that the Congress so intended it to be. Let’s face it - it’s a badly written and thought-out piece of legislation.
We know that four of the SCOTUS will interpret the phrase as a term of art because they’re schills with no care what the law is. That’s the downside to Roberts doing what he thinks is right.
I hope Roberts has buyers remorse too.
“...There are public statements made by lawmakers and administration supporters during the writing of the ACA, detailing the carrot/stick approach of tax breaks for state exchanges only.”
******************************************************************************************************
ABSOLUTELY. There are all kinds of federal laws that employ “carrots/sticks” to encourage the states to do certain things. This is same-old, same-old and is as close to a “black and white” case as you can get.
I had that exact same stroke of Genius back in 1996. I told anyone who would listen that we ought to nominate a Black Conservative for President because we would have gained all that "Historical first" benefit and would also have put the media into the position of having difficulty in criticizing anything he said or did.
Had we nominated a strong Black conservative, much of the misery we are currently dealing with would never have happened.
Unfortunately we put principle above pragmatism. Had we just been willing to look at people as a "color" we would have cleaned the Democrat's clocks.
You’re right.
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.