Posted on 03/04/2015 12:37:04 PM PST by TangledUpInBlue
Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul three years ago by unexpectedly joining the liberal wing of the court, stayed largely silent in oral arguments on a new challenge that could deal a mortal blow to the law.
The argument centers on whether four words in the more than 1,000-page act should be interpreted literally, which would render millions of people who live in the dozens of states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges ineligible for federal subsidies to help them purchase insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I'm no lawyer, but I would think the rule of evidence, res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), should apply to the phrase "through an exchange established by the state."
Gruber said that the law was intentionally written the way it reads in order to pressure the states to open exchanges. It didn't work. Most states looked at the costs involved and chose for whatever reasons not to open exchanges. If the court sides with the plaintiffs that state means state and not federal government, then it is up to Congress to rewrite the law and the president to sign it if they choose to do so. The Supreme Court, in my view, does not have the authority to rewrite a plainly written law. Neither does the president acting by himself.
When a carpenter see’s a nail popping out of a board, he’ll hammer it back down and add another nail. In my opinion, the analogy holds true for the reason the Super Duper Court took up this issue again is because of all the opposition (the nail popping up) to 0care and grabbed a hammer to drive another nail in their pesky problem of 0care.
Have you ever wonder why it would take until June for their decision when this law has been evaluated word by word by the court before? They are giving that much time for the spinners of the media to spew out enough garbage to make the present law seem acceptable to the public. IMO.
In other words, I’m not getting anxious or wringing my hands waiting for the verdict in June but I will take a stab at the outcome. Seven to two agreeing to uphold 0care.
We have crossed over to where 5 Justices can rule anyway they want the Constitution be damned.
See’s = Sees
Everybody needs to let Roberts know: We know all about the illegal adoption from Ireland. We don’t care. You don’t have to uphold Obamacare in order to keep your children.
Kennedy AND Roberts will contort Federalism 180 degrees an find in favor of Burwell.
-... if Kennedy sides with the White House interpretation, that the states can do whatever they want and that consumers can just use the federal exchange as a backstop if need be, the coercion problem is solved. See the gigantic irony in that? ObamaCare, the biggest federal intervention in health care since Medicare, may survive legally on federalism grounds because the feds decided to go really big and build their own exchange. Good lord.
-He could simply side with the White House’s reading of “established by a State” and rule that “State” includes “federal government” for purposes of subsidies. Or he could decide that, whatever was meant by “established by a State,” he has no choice but to side with the White House according to the Court’s own rules of interpretation. One of those rules, trumpeted lately by lefties and mentioned today by Kennedy, is “constitutional avoidance,”
You are under the mistaken impression that we still have a Constitutional Process. With the Chicago Way in place now, blackmail files are more powerful than the Constitution.
The words are pretty clear on their face--you have to read in the descriptive language of the credit section providing for insurance purchased on exchanges to a person residing in a state which say you get the credit for insurance purchased on exchanges "established by state" to mean on exchanges "established by the state [or the federal government]" which is obviously not what the words say.
Further, the words were put in the statute for the purpose of leveraging the states to establish exchanges on which their citizens would purchase insurance. Which on its face is probably unconstitutional.
It looks to me as though Robert's is wimping on this issue--what needs to be done is to show him that leverage works both ways.
We need to see a lot of letters to members of Congress, members on Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate, asking for investigation of the widely known gossip that Roberts was leveraged on the original decision approving Obamacare because of the illegal adoption of his children.
See my #50 for how the Chicago Way is available to work for us.
:)
Bravo. I fully agree with you. Roberts felt that completely overturning the ACA was going too far at that time. But he did reverse Obama on the Medicaid blackmail provision in the law which encouraged 33 states to refuse to set up their own state exchange.
I don't understand the idiot pundits who think that Kennedy might now vote with the liberals to save ACA after the dissent he wrote in vehement opposition to the ACA two years ago. Now the five conservatives on the court can prick a hole in the ACA that will force Obama to work with Congress to rewrite a voluntary health law on a bipartisan basis--something that should have been done in the first place.
Yo, Roberts.
Eat pooh and die ya worthless obammy butt kisser.
Time to send him a couple of glossy pictures of his kids playing in the back yard?
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.