Skip to comments.Split Rulings Over Obamacare Point to Another Supreme Court Showdown
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 presidents 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 ...
The only vote that even possibly could change to make it 5-4 the way we want it is...
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.
Gonna be hard for SCOTUS to analyze Obamacare again with Robert’s head stuck in the sand.
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 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.
These court procedures will never finish out before this country is GONE. Too bad our founding fathers didnt anticipate this tactic.
Too little, too late.
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.
The court may be too busy working on transgender rights to bother with this matter.
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?
I think those who prejudge Roberts are wrong to do so, but only time will tell.
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.
You are likely to be right. Hoping for change...for C.J. Roberts
I can’t blame them.
If you have a bad record on this one issue that affects everyone, it’s hard to regain trust.
RE: I think those who prejudge Roberts are wrong to do so, but only time will tell.
I cant blame them.
If you have a bad record on this one issue that affects everyone, its hard to regain trust.
RE: His vote on the ACA basically telegraphed his view that it Congresses role not the Supreme Courts 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Of course he was. Does it surprise you that Obama would lie about such a thing?
I’m pretty bitter after 2012, what a punch to the gut the SCOTUS decision and election was. :/
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.
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’.
“Gonna be hard for SCOTUS to analyze Obamacare again with Roberts 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.
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.
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.”
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.
I believe you have it right.
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.