Posted on 07/11/2014 7:34:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he “wouldn’t bet the family farm” on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts.
“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”
The law’s latest legal problem is that, as written, people who enroll in Obamacare through the federal exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies. The text of the law only provides subsidies for people enrolled through “an Exchange established by the State,” according to the text of the Affordable Care Act. Only 16 states decided to establish the exchanges.
The IRS issued a regulation expanding the pool of enrollees who qualify for the subsidies. Opponents of the law, such as the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler, argue that the IRS does not have the authority to make that change. (Halbig v. Burwell, one of the lawsuits making this argument, is currently pending before the D.C. Circuit Court; the loser will likely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.)
“There are specific rules about when and how the IRS can deviate from the plain language of a statute,” Cannon explained to National Review Online, arguing that the subsidies regulation fails to comply with those rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Possible interest given your earlier thoughts:
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2903818/posts
Ted Olson’s wife, Barbara, died in the plane that flew into the Pentagon on 9/11.
Yes, fired after the first defeat in the Supreme Court, replaced by David Boyes. But I’m wondering what the big deal is; obama can solve the problem he created by issuing another EO or reg to write the law anew just like all the other rewrites. In any event, Reid has his back if the SCOTUS rules against him.
Thanks for the ping.
Everyone’s still looking for flaws in the law, instead of at its limited applicability. Not that that’s a bad thing, since it’s full of giant holes. But so far the courts seem to be ignoring severability and just finding ways to implement it anyway.
Roberts directed his attention to limited applicability. When the Chief Justice indicates a path, it’s usually for a good reason. But we’ll see. Maybe it will fall for other reasons.
“Why use Federal or State at all? Why would legislation refer to any government body if all exchanges were to be treated the same?”
Ha! That is the crux of the matter. Let’s see if these judges rule on law or politics?
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.