Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obamacare opponents ask Supreme Court to step in
MSNBC ^ | August 1, 2014 | By Adam Serwer

Posted on 08/01/2014 2:19:47 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

The group seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Act’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 0carenightmare; exchanges; halbig; obamacare; obamacaresubsidies; rinocare; scotus; socialism

1 posted on 08/01/2014 2:19:47 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Owing largely to Republican resistance, only 14 states have set up their own exchanges. The federal government runs the remaining 36.

How MSNBC is the tone of that statement, "Republican Resistance"...
2 posted on 08/01/2014 2:24:02 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Shut it all down.

Then bury it in the sea.


3 posted on 08/01/2014 2:24:51 PM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

RE: Asking Supreme Court to Step In.

Ahhh... but do they have LEGAL STANDING?


4 posted on 08/01/2014 2:25:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I don’t think the Supreme Court will step into this before an “en banc” hearing.


5 posted on 08/01/2014 2:32:02 PM PDT by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

“””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?


6 posted on 08/01/2014 2:37:34 PM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: babygene

I don’t 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.


7 posted on 08/01/2014 3:11:50 PM PDT by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: babygene

Why not? Roberts has inoculated himself on this issue, while Kagan has shot herself in the foot.


8 posted on 08/01/2014 3:15:52 PM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“Shut it all down. Then bury it in the sea.”

Sounds like a nice Gift from Obunga to Osama.


9 posted on 08/01/2014 3:22:52 PM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

Could you expand on your statement? Sounds like an interesting part of the puzzle.


10 posted on 08/01/2014 3:28:01 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“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 – what’s 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.


11 posted on 08/01/2014 3:39:56 PM PDT by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

“....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.


12 posted on 08/01/2014 3:42:42 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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?


13 posted on 08/01/2014 5:06:25 PM PDT by CincyRichieRich (Refuse to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Note the new talking point language...
Federally run state exchanges.

Pathetic


14 posted on 08/01/2014 5:29:38 PM PDT by BlueNgold (Have we crossed the line from Govt. in righteous fear of the People - to a People in fear of Govt??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Assuming the en banc vote reverses the decision what is the likelihood that it will be appealed and then accepted by the Supreme Court?


15 posted on 08/01/2014 6:20:00 PM PDT by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

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!


16 posted on 08/01/2014 7:19:44 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

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.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/Judges


17 posted on 08/01/2014 7:47:53 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Thanks for your insight and your comments. This is going to be an interesting case to follow.


18 posted on 08/01/2014 7:56:38 PM PDT by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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


19 posted on 08/01/2014 8:44:28 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


20 posted on 08/01/2014 8:55:15 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chaguito
Would you expand on your statement? Sounds like an interesting part of the puzzle.

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
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html

21 posted on 08/04/2014 9:36:23 AM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold

Good catch.

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.


22 posted on 08/08/2014 12:07:28 AM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson