Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/02/2014 6:55:14 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Perdogg

This would end Obamacare and then what?


2 posted on 07/02/2014 6:57:55 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

Under this regime (and John Roberts) the actual text of the law has no meaning. God only knows how this court will rule. Could be by the constitution, could be by the pen and phone technique.


3 posted on 07/02/2014 6:59:26 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

“In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that “this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.” “

I call complete BS on this.

The court revised Obamacare legislation when Roberts changed what the legislation called a “penalty” to a “tax.


5 posted on 07/02/2014 7:16:19 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

Scouts must reverse its erroneous ruling on the constitutionality of ocare or else the people will never be safe from another overreach.


8 posted on 07/02/2014 7:36:05 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

The decision will hinge on what the meaning of ‘is’ is .... oops, I mean what the meaning of ‘by’ is.

I know what the word ‘by’ means when used in passive construction. It’s a simple word derived from Old English and is used to indicate the “agent” who accomplishes something. So something established ‘by a state’ simply means created/established/built “BY THAT STATE”. What could be clearer? What could be simpler? What could mean ONLY that one thing?

Well, we’ll have to wait to see what the court says and, next year, what the Supreme Court says.


11 posted on 07/02/2014 8:26:00 PM PDT by House Atreides (ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FOR CHILDERS 2014 .... Don't reward bad GOPe behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg
... after 34 states refused to build their own exchanges...and how many more abandoned their own exchanges after they couldn't get them to work right?.....
12 posted on 07/02/2014 8:51:45 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg
NUKE IT BABY!!!!
14 posted on 07/02/2014 10:05:22 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

“Question: Does Healthcare.gov, the exchange built by the federal government after 34 states refused to build their own exchanges, qualify as an “Exchange established by the State”?


Yes. The feds will say they are the state.


16 posted on 07/02/2014 10:14:17 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

17 posted on 07/02/2014 10:17:50 PM PDT by CharlesOConnell (CharlesOConnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

The challenge was initially written off by some as a fool’s errand because there’s a lack of evidence that the Democrats who crafted and passed the Affordable Care Act intended to block subsidies on the federal exchange, which was designed as a backstop on behalf of the states. (They’ve signed a brief saying as much.) But the challengers seized on an ambiguity in the language of the statute which says the subsidies are to be provided by “an Exchange established by the State.”


These guys must have a memory with a half-life of 6 months. This was NOT an ambiguity — is was a “stick” to force States into creating their own Exchange.

I recall the crafting of ACA vividly. The Feds could not DEMAND that States create exchanges per a Supreme Court ruling, so the ACA authors came up with a carrot and some sticks to force them to anyway.

The carrot was that the Feds would pay for the cost of the expanded Medicaid for the first 3 years for States that created an exchange (Wheee ... which States would turn down free money?)

The “Sticks” were: if a State did not create an exchange, the Feds would not pay the Obamacare subsidies for residents in that State (thus hurting the employees in that State); and the Feds would withdraw ALL Medicaid funding for that State.

An early lawsuit by a State led to the Supreme Court ruling that the Feds could NOT cut off all Medicaid funding if the State did not create an exchange (i.e., the Supremes broke this stick).

States then began evaluating whether it was in their best interest to create an Exchange or not, because the big stick of withdrawing medicaid funding was broken. Eventually 36 States decided that they were better off not expanding medicaid, and decided against creating an Exchange.

The Democrats were then backed into a corner — they couldn’t allow 36 States to not have Obamacare subsidies; so they changed their tune and said that they really really didn’t mean that there would be no subsidies for States covered by the Federal Exchange, even though the ACA said so explicitly.

HHS was then presented with a problem — they had to build an Exchange to cover the residents of 36 States plus DC, and this resulted in the Obamacare Website fiasco (had States created their own exchanges, the HHS website for DC only would have been a much smaller problem - fewer people signing up, coverage only for DC, not a variant for each of 36 States).

The IRS was then tasked to create a rule which penalized employers in 36 States without State Exchanges if any of their employees accepted an Obamacare subsidy. Hence the lawsuit — how can the IRS have a rule that gives subsidies to employees in a State without a State Exchange (and thus penalizes the employer) when the law in plain English says subsidies will only be given to employees in States which have created a State Exchange.

Having stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night, my legal opinion is that legally this is cut and dried: the IRS Rule (regulation) explicitly contradicts the plain language of the law itself. Without the IRS rule, there is no enforcement, and the States can tell HHS to go fly a kite. We will see tomorrow whether the Federal Judges agree with me.

If you want to have fun, go to SCOTUSBlog and look at how Obama’s lawyer tied himself into knots trying to argue that the plain language of ACA doesn’t mean what it says (”Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?”)


18 posted on 07/02/2014 10:58:41 PM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

The most liberal appeals court in the country.....never.


21 posted on 07/03/2014 12:16:54 AM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

We’ll see. Looks like they’re grabbing at straws. And in any case, the author of the article got the political implications right. If dear leader decides to extend the subsidies by imperial decree, who is going to do anything about it?


23 posted on 07/03/2014 2:17:05 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Be a part of the American freedom migration: freestateproject.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

Since when does the adminstration care what the courts rule ?

Unless it’s in their favor...

This guy is trying to find ways around a SCOTUS ruling, you think he cares about this court ?


26 posted on 07/03/2014 3:25:11 AM PDT by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

anyone have ANY confidence in the courts to do what’s right by America? Zero, squat, nada,
How about the Congress, Senate?
Nope they are in on big money and to hell with ya all.
And as for this punk ass Chicago thug in the his white hut?
What a total dumbass obammy turned out to be.
Other than read a teleprompter and watch ESPN, this baboso s a worthless dog.


27 posted on 07/03/2014 4:17:02 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) obammy lied and lied and lied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

I pray that USG courts start following the _law_; this _Health_Care_law_ is unlawful. It violates the supreme law of USA, period. That SCOTUS or any other USG court would decree this is quite unlikely; they don’t follow law; they don’t represent the law anymore; they certainly don’t represent you USAians.


29 posted on 07/03/2014 6:24:33 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Bump


33 posted on 07/04/2014 5:35:20 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson