Posted on 09/30/2014 1:10:57 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
Today, in Pruitt v. Burwell, another federal court concluded that the IRS rule authorizing tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for the purchase of health insurance in federal exchanges violates the text of the PPACA. In reaching this result, Judge White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma concurred with the initial panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Halbig v. Burwell and rejected the conclusions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in King v. Burwell. A fourth case against the IRS rule remains pending in federal district court in Indiana.
The opinion is relatively short and quite direct, quickly cutting through the various attempts to cast plain statutory language as ambiguous or otherwise get around the text that Congress enacted. As I’m on the road (returning from a debate on the merits in these cases with Professor Nicholas Bagley at the University of Michigan Law School), I’ll just post the concluding section of Judge White’s opinion. More thoughts may follow.
The court is aware that the stakes are higher in the case at bar than they might be in another case. The issue of consequences has been touched upon in the previous decisions discussed. Speaking of its decision to vacate the IRS Rule, the majority in Halbig stated “[w]e reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance.” 758 F.3d at 412.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Big Deal!!! Very, Very Big Deal. Judges who can read English. Refreshing to say the least.
Thanks for posting.
But with this administration, if it doesn’t like the “Law” it can ignore the law, the Congress, and the Constitution.
If it likes the court ruling (Roe vs Wade, Holdren’s climate-carbon tax scheme, Robert’s Obamacare decision that a tax isn’t a tax unless it is a fine, but not a tax) then it will vigorously enforce the “new law” ...
The decision, in my view, is well worth reading, as a refreshing and very understandable judgement.
Basically it says ‘Congress is free to change the law it put into place in the first place. When it put that law into place, it wrote the language of the law in plain English. We (the present court) have no ability to interpret what they might have meant or what they forgot to add or to imagine what the consequences might be of this or that interpretation. We are here to rule on the law as written and as written, the law plainly says what it plainly says: that the IRS rule authorizing tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for the purchase of health insurance in federal exchanges violates the text of the PPACA.
The case (even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal) does not “gut” or “destroy” anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act as written. Congress is free to amend the ACA to provide for tax credits in both state and federal exchanges, if that is the legislative will.Exactly right.The role of this Court is to apply the statute as it is written – even if we think some other approach might ‘accor[d] with good policy.’
Obamacare Fans: THIS IS A MUST READ.
Oh, you’re not an Obamacare fan? Then its a MUST-MUST READ.
This thread is not getting the attention it deserves.
The punch line:
“The court holds that the IRS Rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C), or otherwise is an invalid implementation of the ACA, and is hereby vacated.”
The decision is actually a good read.
Oklahoma wins.
Just got my notice yesterday that my PMI expires and I have from Nov 15 to EOY to find new. So far obastard care has cost us through the nose and it will cost a whole lot more before it is over if it gets over before we are done in.
Sadly the supreme court is political, and does not care about the letter of the law. And they will make the final decision.
This judge speaks the truth. When he says that the courts have no right to change the language of the law(and gives precedents) then this judge is directly slapping the USSC because they did change the language of the Obama care law in order to declare it valid. By saying it was a tax then the USSC broke the very laws it was suppose to protect. Don’t expect anything different from them here.
The Decision is a pretty good read, the other monkees with hammers that dissented should be ashamed of themselves and Congress should bring them before hearings to see if they are COMPETENT to be a Judge, they demonstrated their inability to READ already, Congress should remove them from the Bench, it may destroy their honor and reputation, but the REPUBLIC will be SAVED.
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.