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

Skip to comments.

Split Rulings Over Obamacare Point to Another Supreme Court Showdown
Wall Street Journal ^ | 07/22/2014 | Jacob Gershman

Posted on 07/22/2014 11:28:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Less than an hour after an appeals court in Washington ordered the Obama administration to turn off the spigot of federal subsidies to consumers through U.S.-run health-care exchanges, an appeals court in Virginia ruled that the subsidies should be allowed to keep on flowing.

With the future of Obamacare hanging in the balance, the back-to-back opinions raise the likelihood of another Supreme Court showdown over the the president’s marquee law.

The two circuits split over an issue fundamental to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. That is, whether the Internal Revenue Service had the authority under the statute passed by Congress to extend federal subsidies to coverage acquired through federal exchanges.

In 36 states, the federal government runs some or all of the online exchanges. So, if the subsidies are invalidated, the number of people who must purchase health insurance or face a penalty could shrink significantly.

(Excerpt) Read more at stream.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: courts; democratcare; halbig; obamacare; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 07/22/2014 11:28:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The only vote that even possibly could change to make it 5-4 the way we want it is...

C.J. Roberts

So...?


2 posted on 07/22/2014 11:33:31 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

John Roberts is compromised.

His last opinion made no sense in the context of Constitutional law and in fact he created his own constitutional basis for upholding the PPACA.

I wish I was wrong in saying that SCOTUS will uphold the 4th circuit ruling.


3 posted on 07/22/2014 11:33:46 AM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Gonna be hard for SCOTUS to analyze Obamacare again with Robert’s head stuck in the sand.


4 posted on 07/22/2014 11:33:50 AM PDT by PapaNew (Freedom always wins the debate in the forum of ideas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

These court procedures will never finish out before this country is GONE. Too bad our founding fathers didn’t anticipate this tactic.

Too little, too late.


5 posted on 07/22/2014 11:33:55 AM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I see zero chance that Roberts is going to flip sides and vote to throw out Obamacare on this issue.

Always remember, the Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it says.


6 posted on 07/22/2014 11:34:39 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

These court procedures will never finish out before this country is GONE. Too bad our founding fathers didn’t anticipate this tactic.

Too little, too late.


I agree. It’s not really even relevant. Heck, I abandoned health insurance on Jan. 1st. My tag line covers it.


7 posted on 07/22/2014 11:41:28 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Speaking of compromised. If you go to any of the websites where these rulings are reported and read the comments, you’ll see many of our fellow citizens are compromised. They’re completely happy with making us buy things we don’t want. At the anti illegal immigration rallies around the country you had thousands of people coming together in SUPPORT of what’s happening at the border, with vitriol for those of us who wanted some semblance of law. So, whatever the court decides, we’re too divided to keep living under the same laws. They want to dictate everything we do. They want us to pay them for doing thins we find disgusting, and criminalize our thoughts and words. We can’t live with them anymore.


8 posted on 07/22/2014 11:48:32 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
These court procedures will never finish out before this country is GONE.

The court may be too busy working on transgender rights to bother with this matter.

9 posted on 07/22/2014 11:48:54 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Roberts will not change.

Roberts view of being a Conservative SC Justice is that of a minimalist. His vote on the ACA basically telegraphed his view that it Congresses role not the Supreme Court’s role to decide on the fate of the ACA.

So the SC will likely force Congress to deal with the issue just in time for the 2016 election. Does anyone seriously think the Congress Critters will tell millions of folks on the subsidies, and the big insurance companies making big profits from those subsidies, that Congress is going to take away those subsidies in an election year?


10 posted on 07/22/2014 11:49:17 AM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I think those who prejudge Roberts are wrong to do so, but only time will tell.


11 posted on 07/22/2014 11:50:28 AM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Obama will never let the ACA be compromised in any shape or form, no way he lets the SC rule against his law in a manner that would make it null and void.


12 posted on 07/22/2014 11:52:09 AM PDT by erod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

You are likely to be right. Hoping for change...for C.J. Roberts


13 posted on 07/22/2014 11:52:55 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I can’t blame them.

If you have a bad record on this one issue that affects everyone, it’s hard to regain trust.


14 posted on 07/22/2014 11:52:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

RE: I think those who prejudge Roberts are wrong to do so, but only time will tell.

I can’t blame them.

If you have a bad record on this one issue that affects everyone, it’s hard to regain trust.


15 posted on 07/22/2014 11:53:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

SCOTUS.


16 posted on 07/22/2014 11:55:32 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

RE: His vote on the ACA basically telegraphed his view that it Congresses role not the Supreme Court’s role to decide on the fate of the ACA.

_______________________________________

If this is so, then the right decision would have been to in effect say this :

“The law as written now, PENALIZES people who do not purchase healthcare. That is a violation of the constitution. However, if it were written as a tax, then Congress can tax people for not purchasing healthcare. But since as written, it IS NOT a TAX but a PENALTY, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.

In this way, he could have thrown the law back to Congress to rewrite.

Instead, he RE-IMAGINED what was CLEARLY a PENALTY into a TAX, in effect, rewriting the law himself.


17 posted on 07/22/2014 11:58:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Communist manipulation of our so called “courts”. What a joke. A real circus. Flippin’ lowlife “judges”. Our laws mean NOTHING! Their rulings depend only on which party THEY work for.


18 posted on 07/22/2014 12:05:03 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The future must not belong to those who slander bacon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
He told Congress to fix it themselves. His vote is the one that matters not what anyone else thinks he should have done.

Congress is going to have to change the law. Not the Roberts’s SC.

Unfortunately, Congress is populated by folks only interested in getting reelected so I'm not holding my breath.

19 posted on 07/22/2014 12:08:04 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Roberts can kill Obamacare by upholding it.

By upholding it AS WRITTEN and as Congress INTENDED it (that the subsidies be an incentive for states to establish exchanges), he thereby eliminates subsidies for states with no exchanges, and hoists O'care on its own petard.

Thus he is consistent with his earlier ruling.

20 posted on 07/22/2014 12:10:26 PM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; Salvation; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

21 posted on 07/22/2014 12:11:26 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

If you are right about Roberts, then he should rule that the subsidies are illegal. Congress already, in fact, DID tell people that they would not get any subsidies if their state did not participate in Obamacare — that’s what the law actually says. If Roberts truly is a minimalist and won’t vote against the intent of Congress, then he will vote that the subsidies are not legal; that’s what’s in the law that Congress actually passed.


22 posted on 07/22/2014 12:12:55 PM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

All tied up 1-1 so we decide this by penalty kicks right?


23 posted on 07/22/2014 12:14:06 PM PDT by Wyatt's Torch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Robert’s will say the part of the original ACA decision striking the provisions expanding Medicaid made the wording in question ambiguous.

Roberts will force Congress to deal with the issue whether they want to or not....


24 posted on 07/22/2014 12:23:21 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: erod

You forgot their RECENT ‘Hobby Lobby’ decision in favor of HL!!!!


25 posted on 07/22/2014 12:24:08 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Excellent. I agree with your analysis. Roberts will give the subsidies the BOOT!


26 posted on 07/22/2014 12:25:46 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
They did anticipate it. That's why they gave us three branches, impeachment, and the Second Amendment. They also reinforce it in the Declaration itself.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

27 posted on 07/22/2014 12:27:42 PM PDT by Solson (The Voters stole the election! And the establishment wants it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Roberts pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire one time. He will do it again.


28 posted on 07/22/2014 12:34:46 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Like he made it turn out the ay we wanted it before?


29 posted on 07/22/2014 12:35:53 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sport
Like he made it turn out the way we wanted it before?

Uh, no. That would be the other way we wanted it. (Which way is Third Mesa?)
30 posted on 07/22/2014 12:40:51 PM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MUDDOG
Roberts can kill Obamacare by upholding it.

Your reasoning seems solid to me. So...C.J. Roberts would NOT have to countermand his original vote and everyone (who have the goods) who forced him to call it a tax will be happy with his remaining consistent? Need a scorecard for this one.
31 posted on 07/22/2014 12:45:12 PM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Who will enforce it if it is found to be illegal? The executive branch has been thumbing his nose at the laws, constitution and courts for 6 years, and nothing happens.


32 posted on 07/22/2014 12:45:42 PM PDT by Ironfocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I see zero chance that Roberts is going to flip sides and vote to throw out Obamacare on this issue.

I disagree. It's not about sides with Roberts. Roberts thinks Obamacare is terrible policy. He pretty much said so in his Obamacare opinion. He understands, however, that his job is not to determine whether a law is good policy, but instead to determine whether there is Constitutional support for the law. We all hated that his view that the tax clause gives the Feds the power to tax those who do not buy insurance had the effect of keeping the awful Obamacare law alive. Remember, though, that he agreed with the majority that the Feds do not have the power to force people to buy insurance. That was a significant limitation on the Commerce Clause and a significant victory for those of us who want to rein in big government. I can't imagine he would think it's appropriate for the IRS to issue regulations that contradict clear language in the legislation giving the IRS the power to issue those regulations. We'll see.

33 posted on 07/22/2014 12:59:24 PM PDT by KevinB (Barack Obama: Our first black, gay, Kenyan, Muslim president!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinB

RE: Remember, though, that he agreed with the majority that the Feds do not have the power to force people to buy insurance...

OK, where in the law does it say that not buying health insurance will subject you to a TAX?

It says that you are subject to a PENALTY.

Obama himself told George Stephanopoulos that the mandate is NOT A TAX.

See here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

How did that morph in a tax?


34 posted on 07/22/2014 1:13:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

RE: He told Congress to fix it themselves.

Well then, he should have left the law alone and declared in unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.


35 posted on 07/22/2014 1:15:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MUDDOG

RE: Roberts can kill Obamacare by upholding it.
By upholding it AS WRITTEN and as Congress INTENDED it

__________________________

SIGH, if only....

Roberts DID NOT uphold the law AS WRITTEN when it came to the healthcare purchase mandate.

AS WRITTEN is says that those who don’t buy health insurance are subject to ta PENALTY.

Roberts CHANGED it to make it mean a TAX.

The man simply REWROTE the law from the bench.

How can we be confident that he won’t similarly rewrite this portion of the law?


36 posted on 07/22/2014 1:17:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

True.


37 posted on 07/22/2014 1:21:34 PM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
That is, whether the Internal Revenue Service had the authority under the statute passed by Congress to extend federal subsidies to coverage acquired through federal exchanges.

If Obama told the truth:

"If you like your doctor, you can have the IRS as your new doctor."

38 posted on 07/22/2014 1:24:58 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The government argued both in its brief and during oral argument that the penalty was a tax which it had authority to impose pursuant to the taxing clause. Roberts didn’t pull it out of thin air.


39 posted on 07/22/2014 1:34:18 PM PDT by KevinB (Barack Obama: Our first black, gay, Kenyan, Muslim president!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KevinB

RE: The government argued both in its brief and during oral argument that the penalty was a tax which it had authority to impose pursuant to the taxing clause

So, Obama was lying when he said THE MANDATE IS NOT A TAX.

See here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

WATCH HERE:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/Presiden-Obama-George-Stephanopoulos-This-Week-mandate-tax-health-care-Supreme-Court-2009-16686364


40 posted on 07/22/2014 1:48:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So, Obama was lying when he said THE MANDATE IS NOT A TAX.

Of course he was. Does it surprise you that Obama would lie about such a thing?

41 posted on 07/22/2014 2:09:30 PM PDT by KevinB (Barack Obama: Our first black, gay, Kenyan, Muslim president!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

I’m pretty bitter after 2012, what a punch to the gut the SCOTUS decision and election was. :/


42 posted on 07/22/2014 2:38:30 PM PDT by erod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If Roberts holds true to form, he will state that Congress is the remedy, that Congress stated what it intended, and if it intended something different than it stated it is up to Congress to correct it’s plain language.


43 posted on 07/22/2014 2:52:54 PM PDT by Real Cynic No More (Border Fence Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

John Roberts will vote for federal subsidizing of ObamaCare. I have zero doubt about this.

It’s about federal money:

If ObamaCare state exchanges are already funded by federal money channeled through those state exchanges, it will be easy for Roberts to say that was the intent. (And, it would be harder to take him to task over it.)

If ObamaCare state exchanges are funded by state money, then Roberts will find that the federal government should be funding all subsidies despite what the law said, and that because of the federal taxes that are levied. This will be a harder place to arrive, but Roberts will somehow do it, given his finding that ObamaCare is funded by ‘taxes’ and not ‘mandates’.


44 posted on 07/22/2014 2:58:19 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

“Gonna be hard for SCOTUS to analyze Obamacare again with Robert’s head stuck in the sand.”

Roberts would have ruled the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional, and he would have done so with more sound legal reasoning than he has ever displayed in Obamacare.


45 posted on 07/22/2014 3:35:11 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Federal injustices like John Roberts regularly decided to invent a whole intent separate from that which was clearly written.

If congress has Intended something other than what was written congress would have written that instead of what they did. To infer any other intent is a lairs argument.

In this particular case Congressional democrats clearly passed this as a kind of Opt out clause. If Robert’s claims about the law’s unworkable are to have any merit they would have to recognize its clear opt-out provision.


46 posted on 07/22/2014 3:44:30 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

OK, first the obvious.

- The USA is basically lawless.
The “law” is whatever a left-wing neo-marxist ideological judge says it is to further their marxist agenda.
Natural law and rule of law is dead.

- Two, Roberts most likely was shown his NSA file with someone saying,
“ You know, be kind of a shame if this pics and this info of you being in the closet got out now wouldn`t it. Be much easier to just find the ACA legal and all this goes away.”


47 posted on 07/22/2014 4:10:14 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45 (Americans, happy in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own dictators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise; P-Marlowe

Krauthammer nailed this tonight, reminding me of info I’d forgotten from way back when. The democrat congress INTENTIONALLY didn’t fund non-state exchanges. They did so to FORCE STATES to enact a state exchange. The penalty was, if they didn’t do so, that they wouldn’t get to participate in the subsidies. The liberals thought that would force the unhappy states to enter the exchanges.

Most states still chose not to be a part of the exchanges. Now the democrats are trying to say their intent was to fund everyone. Krauthammer reminded me. That’s simply not true.


48 posted on 07/22/2014 4:34:46 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

I believe you have it right.


49 posted on 07/22/2014 4:35:47 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: xzins

If the intent was to subsidize everyone they would not have even mentioned the exchanges. They would have given the subsidy to everyone who was otherwise qualified.

This is a dishonest decision which is evidence that our courts are utterly corrupt.


50 posted on 07/22/2014 4:50:50 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

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