Skip to comments.Why the Halbig Decision Should Be Taken Seriously
Posted on 07/24/2014 9:22:24 PM PDT by SteveH
The Supreme Court simply isn't going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people in order to teach Congress a lesson about grammar. . . . For Halbig to unwind Obamacare, the Supreme Court would ultimately have to rule in the plaintiff's favor. And they're not going to do that. By the time SCOTUS even could rule on Halbig the law will have been in place for years.
This sort of reaction is a mistake, at least insofar as a pundit is trying to figure out what the Supreme Court might actually do, if and when the case makes its way to 1 First St. In the eyes of the conservative justices who comprise a majority of the court, the arguments made by plaintiffs will be taken very seriously.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
There is zero chance that Roberts will flip sides and vote to throw out Obamacare after the contortions he went through to uphold it as a tax.
Agreed. And zero chance this won’t be overturned by the full panel. SCOTUS might not even take this or the 5th Cir case.
The Rule of Law in our Republic needs to be upheld at some point. If it isn’t, we move toward being governed by the Rule of Man. We may be approaching a point of no return when the written rule of law will mean ONLY what those in power wish it to mean for their (and/or their cronies) own selfish purposes. And at that point the Republic will cease to exist.
I’d say we’re past that point. Look at how Obama decides when “the letter of the law” is paramount, and when “the spirit of the law” is really the issue. And which to enforce and which not to enforce. Etc. I say we’re past that point because so far there has been exactly zero official pushback from Congress.
Yup. The HMS Rule of Law has sailed.
Since the penalty is a tax and the subsidies are tax subsidies, the federal government cant tax citizens in one state differently from those in another. Therefore the ACA is unconstitutional based on Roberts decision?
It would seem the tax issue is painting the law into a corner, but that is only if Calvinball does not rule the day.
How about even rule of sense.
Barry will just issue an executive nunc pro tunc ‘correcting’ the law ...
similar to the way Henry VIII had Parliament rescind the law against beheading insane women so he could have one of Catherine Howard’s handmaiden’s heads separated from her shoulders.
(”I would consider marrying the King,” said the German princess, “if I had two heads. My own and a spare.”)
Equal protection is grossly violated here.
And the Origination Clause has been violated, and there are those who have been damaged who have standing.
Court starts deciding cases in Oct.
” We may be approaching a point of no return when the written rule of law will mean ONLY what those in power wish it to mean for their (and/or their cronies) own selfish purposes. And at that point the Republic will cease to exist.”
well, the above is true if and when they take our guns. so that is the crucial issue.
If the Court were to enforce the Origination Clause, that would be the best outcome, because it would be on the heads of Reid and Pelosi, who were the ones primarily responsible for perverting the constitutionally mandated legislative process. The Democrats' rage would be especially delicious!
It would seem the tax issue is painting the law into a corner, ...
Call me crazy, but that’s what I thought the whole purpose of John Roberts’ ruling on Obamacare was about from the get-go.
I believe he knew that by ‘naming’ the penalties as ‘taxes’ it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing blew itself to hell.
The Halbig lawsuit just blows another hole in the ACA, by highlighting how the Admin. is not following the law and further wasting taxpayers’ dollars. The big insurance companies tend to lose big time for jumping on Obama’s wagon of lies. ....I hope some of them go bankrupt!
Here’s the thing. Once it gets to the Supreme Court...you can figure it’s July of 2015, when they slug it out and note that it can’t run the way that it was written. So it’s tossed out. The House and Senate could meet and work on this....but no one really cares for an agreeable agenda. So, the end-point where max destruction occurs....is around December of 2015, when folks look at the massive increase in cost, no subsidy ability to relieve them....and a bill for 2016 monthly payments that they simply cannot pay. So, I’ll go ahead and predict that ten million Americans drop their coverage by January 2016...on top of the current group of five million.
The results of all this talk, chatter, and political mess for seven years? Nothing. Same number of Americans without coverage as it was on day one, and everyone else is paying thirty-percent more than they were on day one. Even TV media idiots will be stuck....unable to explain this in a rational way. All that work, and nothing to show for it.
“...The results of all this talk, chatter, and political mess for seven years? Nothing. ...”
Actually, there are likely to have been several tens of thousands of medical practitioners driven into early retirement.
That's what SCOTUS would be codifying by overturning this and letting Congressional Democrats get away with this federal subsidy deceit.
They would be endorsing the practice of writing a bill one way out of necessity to get a compromise passed, knowing that Democrats can deny it later and get SCOTUS to write for them what they really wanted all along in the end.