Posted on 08/02/2017 8:30:00 AM PDT by Cboldt
It became harder Monday night for President Donald Trump to help engineer the collapse of the Affordable Care Act.
A federal court ruled that attorneys general in 17 states and the District of Columbia would be allowed to intervene in a case over crucial subsidies known as cost-sharing-reduction payments. ...
In 2016 a judge ruled in favor of the House, saying the CSR payments were illegal because Congress did not appropriate them. ...
But on Monday, the court ruled that the 17 states and DC could intervene and ... said ending the payments would be damaging to the states' citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
they are dreaming in another world when they think they can compel the US Congress to do anything.
It is routine for judges to order elected officials to do or not do certain things and threaten them with contempt of court if they fail to comply—see sheriff Arpaio.
I understand the Founders’ logic in making them lifetime appointments—they wanted the judges to be apolitical—but the Constitution was written before the rise of political parties and the Founders naively thought that all Americans would “be on the same team”. A homosexual Federal judge in California didn’t like the result of voter-led state Constitutional amendment and he simply struck it down. I can’t imagine the Founders wanted to put that kind of power in an unelected man’s hands.
They expected that judges would be regularly Impeached and Removed.
Blame the US Congress for that failing.
If I were Trump I would ignore the ruling. If the courts can set tax policy tell me again why we need a legislature?
No I didn't, they're not good enough to get pissed on.
And can be appealed to USSC, correct?
Yes, but there is no right to have that appeal heard.
This is an odd procedural posture. In the case below, the House sued the administration, and won. The Obama administration appealed its loss.
I don't know if the Trump administration can now abandon "its" appeal. The appellate court more or less recast the case as "Administration vs. States," a case that was not argued below.
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.