Skip to comments.Obamacare opponents ask Supreme Court to step in
Posted on 08/01/2014 2:19:47 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The group seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Acts subsidies to Americans purchasing health insurance through federally run state marketplaces is asking the Supreme Court to take up the case early.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the conservative group funding challenges to the IRS rule allowing subsidies to flow to state exchanges, announced Thursday that it was asking the Supreme Court to intervene.
The challengers argue that the Affordable Care Act only allows subsidies in exchanges set up by states an interpretation that could lead to millions of people being unable to afford coverage. Owing largely to Republican resistance, only 14 states have set up their own exchanges. The federal government runs the remaining 36.
The Obama administration has said it will seek review of the D.C. Circuit decision by the full slate of judges, known as an en banc hearing. If that happens, the previous decision will technically be wiped out, and there will be no more circuit split.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Shut it all down.
Then bury it in the sea.
RE: Asking Supreme Court to Step In.
Ahhh... but do they have LEGAL STANDING?
I don’t think the Supreme Court will step into this before an en banc hearing.
“””Owing largely to Republican resistance, only 14 states have set up their own exchanges. The federal government runs the remaining 36. “””””
what about the seven other states?
I dont think the Supreme Court will step into this before an en banc hearing.
And an en banc hearing would involve a majority of Dem nominated judges. It seems doubtful to me that a Roberts court would be anxious to take up this case if the 3 judge decision is reversed.
I hate to be negative but I am not hopeful this will turn out the way we would like.
Why not? Roberts has inoculated himself on this issue, while Kagan has shot herself in the foot.
“Shut it all down. Then bury it in the sea.”
Sounds like a nice Gift from Obunga to Osama.
Could you expand on your statement? Sounds like an interesting part of the puzzle.
“That split may not last long, however, which may be one reason why the challengers are asking the Supreme Court to take the case. The Supreme Court is more likely to take cases if there are two contradictory decisions by federal appeals courts whats known as a circuit split.
A bit of wishful thinking. The Court may review a case and overturn both decisions.
This isn’t a “tax” or “penalty” question.
“....review of the D.C. Circuit decision by the full slate of judges, known as an en banc hearing. If that happens, the previous decision will technically be wiped out, and there will be no more circuit split.”
An en banc hearing does not wipe out the lower court’s decision. A vote in favor of reversing the lower court, after the en banc hearing, wipes it out, not the review itself. To get an ‘en banc’ hearing there has to be an advocate on the court to take up the challenge, and support of X judges to hear the case. If that support isn’t there and the full court declines to hear the case, the lower court decision stands. Typically, that is when the question is brought to SCOTUS.
So maybe we can ask Roberts to reverse his vote? Then, he can take his two illegal kids, and send them to Guatemala to be sent back over the border and 0bummer won’t stop them...then, he can’t be blackmailed, right?
Note the new talking point language...
Federally run state exchanges.
Assuming the en banc vote reverses the decision what is the likelihood that it will be appealed and then accepted by the Supreme Court?
The part of the article I quoted was right IF - big IF - an en banc hearing is held and the panel’s decision is upheld. The split between the circuits is eliminated. I would assume that the challengers would appeal.
That split between the circuits is an important factor (maybe primary factor) for SCOTUS taking a case. But it might be that if that split were removed SCOTUS would think it’s an issue to be decided in that court. Always hard to tell what cases they will accept, absent the circuit split.
It just struck me as interesting that the 4th circuit, based in Richmond, has become so liberal (and another liberal judge was quickly pushed thru by Reid in the past week to join that court, making it even more liberal. The support for the challengers to O’Care was in the D.C. Circuit. Go figure.
I’m tempted to see how often an en banc hearing results in a reversal rather than upholding the decision of the panel. But that’s too much like work!
Out of curiosity, I checked the bios of the USCA-DC judges. Some have held positions under both R and D presidents, and it’s difficult to determine their partisan leanings. But, it seems the majority of that court are still R appointees.
Most of the “senior” judges were R appointees who will be quickly replaced by the D appointees. IIRC, Sr. judges would not sit on an en banc panel.
Thanks for your insight and your comments. This is going to be an interesting case to follow.
The law may be flawed, but it is clear the intent of the laguage was to only subsidize only those in state exchanges. Pelosi was right that the law had to be passed to know what was in it I don’t see how the SCOTUs could come to any different conclusion
Documentation File on the 2014 Impeachment of B. Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro a former Foreign Student from Indonesia, and still a legal Citizen of the Sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
Roberts' inoculation came about when he upheld to decline ruling obamacare unconstitutional when it first hit the USSC in 2012. This gives some political cover in the forum of public opinion for Roberts to rule against Obamacare after that decision.
Kagan had this to say about a different case (quoting an LA Times article):
In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that "this court does not revise legislation just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address."
Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare," Jonathan Turley, Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2014
The article is written by Adam Serwer. Serwer is/was a member of Journolist. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3034205/posts
You caught a very deliberate attempt to reframe the issue. Be on the lookout for this reframing by others.