FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
All tied up 1-1 so we decide this by penalty kicks right?
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....
You forgot their RECENT ‘Hobby Lobby’ decision in favor of HL!!!!
Excellent. I agree with your analysis. Roberts will give the subsidies the BOOT!
"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."
Roberts pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire one time. He will do it again.
Like he made it turn out the ay we wanted it before?
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.
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.
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?
RE: He told Congress to fix it themselves.
Well then, he should have left the law alone and declared in unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.
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?
True.
If Obama told the truth:
"If you like your doctor, you can have the IRS as your new doctor."
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.
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:
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.