Skip to comments.Obama’s Law Professor: "I Wouldn’t Bet" on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge
Posted on 07/22/2014 8:42:45 AM PDT by Biggirl
President Obamas old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he wouldnt bet the family farm on Obamacares 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 dont have a crystal ball, Tribe told the Fiscal Times. But I wouldnt bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Your lips, God’s ear professor.
Think you can get it right this time John?
Don’t agree because of the recent appointees to the D.C. Cir. While the panel, moments ago, ruled against ODimwit, the full bench will rule for him. I also don’t see SCOTUS even taking this one.
Democrat nominees now have a majority on the DC Circuit thanks to Reid eliminating the filibuster. The full court may overturn the panel’s ruling.
Sure about that?
Get some info and get back to me please! Thank-you!
The political elite want obamacare. I would bet money it survives.
I support the prof. He is telling just like it is.
The Court of Appeals shot a good sized hole in it today when they said “no” to subsidies for gubmint workers.
“I support the prof. He is telling just like it is.”
Like it should be.
How it is, is that our government is infested with a hoard of self interested elitists. Obamacare gives them the power they so deeply desire.
Should that be “supposed” law professor? Anybody seen those darn errant college records layin’ around anywhere? What? The were stored on lois lerner’s hard drive? Dang the luck. :>}
And he has no patience with Tribes suggestion that it would be bizarre for Roberts to conclude that only state-based exchanges can receive subsidies.
Hes obviously trying to coach the Supreme Court on how to rule for the government here, Cannon counters. Hes also either ignoring or not aware of the legislative history showing that Congress was considering all sorts of proposals that would withhold subsidies from states that didnt establish exchanges or do other things.
It is clear that he has not researched the legislative history, because there is nothing bizarre about it, Cannon says.
The more the truth is told, the more it will fall apart.
In a fair and just country, it might not survive, but Reid and Obama just packed the courts. Negotiating with the Democrats is like negotiating with Hamas.
I twitterd this article to my local conservative talkradio show host. He just read it. Good for him.
Can you get back with some info please! Thank-you!
The Supreme Court will probably take the case especially if a different Court of Appeals rules to the contrary. However, we go into the Supreme Court with four justices presold (out) and questionable characters in Chief Justice Roberts and Kennedy whom we need or the case is lost. I have far more confidence in Kennedy than I do in Roberts.
God only knows what kind of considerations will go through Robert's mind, that is, whether to redeem himself by declaring the payments unlawful or to vindicate himself by declaring them unlawful.
There is a possibility that the Supreme Court will not take up the case which will be more likely if there is no contrary decision in any other federal court and that would imply that the en banc decision which I anticipate in the DC Court of Appeals would stand in the payments would be held to be illegal. My best guess is that another Court of Appeals will agree with this decision and declare the payments illegal. If not, the high court may regard the decision below as one of statutory interpretation and not of constitutional import and therefore decline the case.
To me, this shows how prescient and necessary the government shutdown was over a year ago and why this fight will still have to be fought and won.
Hopefully the Obamacare tornado will be over soon. Still, cleaning up the mess will take years.
Thank-you for a full explaination of the info.
Even if Obamacare is struck down, it will still have much support among the American people who believe it will “stick it” to doctors and hospitals.
Not at all; the American people don't like the truth unless it is what they want to hear.
We live in hope!
Slowly, people are starting wake up, give it time.
“In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority “portends disastrous consequences.”
As if Obamacare isn’t a not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Constitution!
Judge Thomas Griffith - Bush nominee
Judge Harry Edwards - Carter nominee
I won't bother posting pictures because your mind's eye already knows what will appear.
I tend to think that SCOTUS will ultimately take and decide this regardless of what the packed DC Circuit does.
If for no other reason than that we have four (original dissenters) who still hate the law, I think they will hear the case. As long as the composition of the court doesn’t change I think there is a decent chance that Roberts will join the four original dissenters and say that it is not the job of the court to protect legislation from its own explicit language.
The court did just that in a recent EPA case with the five justices we need in this case.
It’s the best legal challenge to the ACA available from my vantage point.
If Roberts had gone against Hobby Lobby I wouldn’t even hold out any hope on this one. But his willingness to piss off the administration makes me think his vote is seriously in play here.
We all hope you're right.
Yea my hope (emphasis on hope) is that Roberts has seen the aftermath of the ACA and regretted it ever since.
From his standpoint he could easily rule with the conservatives on this one and say “I take the cases as they come and this time Congress didn’t leave us with any other choice but to follow the clear language which could have (but wasn’t) been written to mean what the IRS wants it to mean”.
The majority can clearly and plainly pin this ruling right on the donkey where it belongs.
Perhaps Roberts learned his lesson about deals with the devil and how well they turn out.
They wrote the law and shouldn’t get to have the court fix their mistake just because they don’t have the present majority to get it amended legislatively.
As a lawyer it is clear cut to me. The language isn’t ambiguous and it’s not a scrivener error, so the court should apply it as such.
The dishonest and ridiculous arguments from the WH and the left reek of desperation.
I would like to know if Obama's Law Professor would bet on Obama finishing his term..................
I suspect he is right and it is a very sad commentary on the state of justice in America. It has frightening implications for the rule of law and our society. As people catch on to what is happening, that is, that we have the "rule of party" as Limbaugh says rather than the "rule of law" we can expect cynicism and its handmaiden, corruption to spread even faster throughout the land.
Widespread corruption means economic and social disintegration. One more legacy which has Obama smiling as his transformation proceeds apace.
You got it and I am afraid it will make things worse for America.
Kill 0bamaCare before it kills you!
I don’t know if there will ultimately be a split after the full DC Circuirt rules.
That said, I highly doubt that the SCOTUS is going to let something of this magnitude get decided by the lower courts.
The other main reason is that all we need is four to get the case heard, and the original four dissenters really have nothing to lose by hearing this case.
Often times one side will choose not to hear an appeal if it thinks it won’t get five votes, for fear that it will just be more precedent to overcome in the future.
But this is a case of statutory interpretation so there’s no reason to fear taking it.
We could talk all day about the lower courts, statutory interpretation, that EPA case (which is on point), but at the end of the day it will come right down to Roberts.
There’s not one ounce of intellectual honesty on the left, and Roberts is (or has been) too caught up in the perception of the court and his legacy to be reliable.