Skip to comments.Scalia And Company May Have Already Shown Their Hand On Obamacare Subsidies
Posted on 07/24/2014 9:44:26 AM PDT by Resettozero
Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court might have already tipped their hand on the latest substantial legal threat to Obamacare, according to one Yale law professor. And if they did, it would be good news for the Obama administration.
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that Obamacare's language did not allow people shopping on HealthCare.gov to access tax credits if they purchase insurance through the federal website. If that decision were to become law, affecting the 36 states served by the federal exchange, it would strip subsidies from nearly 5 million people and send their premiums skyrocketing. Without some sort of administrative rescue from the Obama administration, it would significantly gut the law.
Another federal appeals court in Virginia ruled the opposite way on the same day. Legal analysts have said it is at least possible that the case will end up in front of the Supreme Court, which largely upheld Obamacare in 2012. But the court's conservative streak has struck down some of the law's other provisions.
Abbe Gluck, a law professor at Yale University, highlighted some passages this week for a piece for Politico that showed how the court's conservative justices seemed to have already interpreted the issue in the 2012 ruling.
"It was Justice Scalia himself ... who interpreted the health reform statute precisely this way in the 2012 health reform case," Gluck wrote, "holistically, and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike."
Though they would have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional as a whole, the justices did not, according to Gluck's analysis, appear to even consider that the tax credits would not be available through HealthCare.gov. In fact, she argued, they seemed to assume exactly the opposite.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...
But that wasn’t the argument they were asked to decide. Now it WILL be....and that could change their interpretation.
Remember, even the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't rooted in the original bill, but in administrative overreach to expand the scope of the original bill.
Abbe Gluck, the Yale prof who is trying to publicly announce how Scalia will rule, is on record as thinking the case against Obamacare was “weak” while she ALSO acknowledged the death-panel law was sloppily written. See a post by her here:
“... and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike.”
If that is what the Justice said, it means he will rule based on the clear text of the law says.
If they agree to take it. I don't think that the DC Circuit's ruling will stand because the it's certain that the Administration will request a rehearing by the full Circuit Court, most of whom were appointed by Democrats. So it's almost a certainty that the full court will rule for the Administration. Once it reaches the Supreme Court they will most likely punt it and refuse to take the case.
The outcome of the “subsidy” issue does not mean anything in the big scheme of things except for timing. Upholding the federal subsidies means the ACA continues down its current path towards chaos and eventual single payer. Overturning the federal subsidies in the ACA means chaos and single payer comes quicker.
This is Bullsh*t. Reeks of desperation on the part of the author.
It wasn't even an interpretation. He was making an assumption purely for the purposes of argument. If I were to say, "If we were to assume that George Washington never lived we may conclude that America would have never won the Revolutionary war", that doesn't mean I'm concluding that George Washington never lived.
We need to revise the textbooks. There are really only 2 branches of Government:
1. The Executive Branch
2. The Legislative Branch consisting of
I just keep wondering, how did the Democrats ask the CBO to score the bill? Did they ask the CBO to score it with exclusively individual state exchanges issuing subsidies? If they did, this would indicate their intent with the language used in drafting the bill. Anybody know how we could find out?
doesn’t this proves that any law negotiated with obama is pointless, if he could simply rewrite his own law. Obama will simply ignore or rewrite any immigration laws he doesn’t like. Any GOP who think Obama could be trusted are either really stupid or traitors
Call your Congressman or one of your Senators (if theyre GOP) and ask the staffer who answers that their office look into it. Make sure you mention that you are a constituent.
They should punt the request to the Congressional Research Service, which should run the issue to ground. The scoring request, the methodology for scoring and the report from CBO should be part of the public record.
I think most people (both sides of the aisle) assumed that the states would set up their own exchanges. The most obvious request to CBO would be: “Score the bill on the assumption that every state sets up its own exchange.”
It’s not surprising the Circuit Courts differed. They have to figure out what Congress was thinking, on a subject that Congress wasn’t thinking about.
Ignore Scalia and the three other Constitutionalist judges. The dead-soul Roberts will be ordered by his masters who hold his blackmail file to rule with the leftist anti-Constitutionalist judges. Whenever the globalist need a ruling they simple remind Roberts of the blackmail.
If people were to lose their subsidies on Obamacare,wouldn’t that benefit those who are paying for those susidies?
They change the law on a whim “as the HHS Secretary may direct” all the time. They can change that too I suppose.
All this illegality will be struck down once the power shifts.
Damn, wrong again, we're talking about the new GOP here.
I'm not giving up!
There are really only 2 branches of Government:
1. The Democrats
2. The Republicans
The former Constitutional branches have been subverted by the parties. Law and precedent no longer matter. The only thing that matters now is protecting the viability of the party in power. To that end, they corrupt the Constitutional branches to justify whatever the party in power needs done at that moment to protect its interests.
I’ve read that they deliberately put the language in because by doing so it caused the CBO to get the number under a trillion.
So yes it’s the law, and the IRS decision to give subsidies through federal exchanges amounts to a federal agency spending taxpayer money which is exclusively up to Congress.
They are trying a bait and switch.
Abbe Gluck’s opinion is just spin. Seems to me that Scalia’s point was conditional on a premise that can’t be met. Scalia will know that.
Justice Roberts ruled that Congress was empowered to create ACA through its power to “tax”.
But taxes and tax subsidies must be levied equally. For example, the federal government cannot allow Earned Income Credits for residents “Blue” states, and disallow Earned Income Credits for residents of “Red” states. If they could, they would.
But ACA allows or denies federal tax subsidies based on which state a person resides in. How can this be “equal treatment under the law”?
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.