Justices to hear challenge to health law subsidies

AP ^ | Nov 7, 2014 | MARK SHERMAN

[BAW]

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's health care law.

The justices said they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.

A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.

[mlo]

"I am sure that Roberts will see it diferently than how it is written."

There is no reason for such pessimism.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Roberts and company are limbering up now preparing for the contortions they will have to get into in order to rule this fascist dung constitutional.”

Contortions is right.

[xzins]

This AP author is clearly on the side of giving everyone subsidies no matter what the text of the law says.

So, if Roberts can find a tax that isn’t there, can he find words that are there to be not there?

[epluribus_2]

We should give everyone a subsidy. And a pony and bag if skittles. If you don’t agree, the you’re mean.

[Gene Eric]

SCOTUS has a mandate!!! The voters said so... well, that’s what the Democrats would say.

[fifedom]

There is no reason for such pessimism.

---

It would be telling to know who the 4 were that voted to take the case but according to Scotusblog
“It would have taken the votes of four Justices to grant review. The Court, as usual, did not indicate the way the Justices had voted on that question.”

If some of the leftists voted to grant cert then we would know the fix is in and they just want to approves the subsidies.

But they could get the same result by not taking the case. And that would not dirty their hands with this political tar baby. That argues that there is more to it and I agree that pessimism is not warranted.

However, we have been stabbed in the back by Roberts before so once burnt twice shy.

[xzins]

Correct. Now lets see what this so-called genius from Harvard Law says....

"Therefore, since the words clearly indicate that subsidies are only applicable to those states who have state exchanges, we must look at those two words 'state' and 'exchange'. The word state has a long and storied history. We have had city-states, nation-states, and state-states. In ascertaining the intent of the authors of this bill, the word exchange comes into play. If those who passed this bill would trade it for something different, then that would be 'exchanging' it for something different. We are certain that if asked they would exchange state-state for nation-state in this instance. And since the intent of Congress is not just what they used to think, but also what they now thing, then we can rest assured that a nation-state with an exchange would be what they would really want this to be. Therefore, we find in favor of the words meaning whatever they damn well choose them to mean." "The nation-state of the USA is ordered to pay subsidies to everyone from those state-states that don't have exchanges, because they are part of the nation-state that has voiced a desire to exchange meanings." "Clear?"

[kevao]

Roberts and company are limbering up now preparing for the contortions they will have to get into in order to rule this fascist dung constitutional.

If that's their intention, then why would they hear the case at all? Just let the lower court's ruling stand.

[xzins]

Correct. Now lets see what this so-called genius from Harvard Law says....

"Therefore, since the words clearly indicate that subsidies are only applicable to those states who have state exchanges, we must look at those two words 'state' and 'exchange'. The word state has a long and storied history. We have had city-states, nation-states, and state-states. In ascertaining the intent of the authors of this bill, the word exchange comes into play. If those who passed this bill would trade it for something different, then that would be 'exchanging' it for something different. We are certain that if asked they would exchange state-state for nation-state in this instance. And since the intent of Congress is not just what they used to think, but also what they now thing, then we can rest assured that a nation-state with an exchange would be what they would really want this to be. Therefore, we find in favor of the words meaning whatever they damn well choose them to mean."

"The nation-state of the USA is ordered to pay subsidies to everyone from those state-states that don't have exchanges, because they are part of the nation-state that has voiced a desire to exchange meanings."

"Clear?"

[stephenjohnbanker]

Clear : )

[xzins]

Why hear at all?

Because they like their pictures in the paper and being talked about in hushed voices like at a golf tournament.

[Mouton]

Just running on experience.

[Sirius Lee]

There is no reason for such pessimism.

Really? Past performance is usually the best indicator of future performance.

[freespirit2012]

You are correct sir... That was their plan all along...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoHcOvuS0eY

[newnhdad]

another dry-hump from the idiots in black robes..

[iowacornman]

I agree with you that the language is plain and profound in the law. What I am intrigued by is how did this get to the court ? The same day the DC Panel ruled that language was clear— no exchange— no subsidy and Virgina liberal panel rushed out a competeing and opposing ruling. That set up a division and a path to the Supreme court BUT then the DC judges agreed for En Banc review by all judges in the circuit most of whom were political hacks of Obama. But they set the panel decision aside thus removing the division between the Circuits!! The Supremes then take the case on what basis? They got 4 votes to hear it on fast track. My guess is it was the conservatives.
If you go back and read the Roberts opinion in Obamacare “is a tax” case. Roberts expressly preserved the right for a state not to be an exchange state and went further to warn against ant coercion by the Feds to make them. Many knew that the subsidies were prohibited to non exchange states and I recal punditry that said Roberts had created obamacare’s Achilles heal in his dictum. I see Roberts swinging our way here.I think the Court is sick of this unconstitutional rule by fiat!!

[Vaquero]

This should be a 9-0 ruling. The ACA very clearly says that the subsidies are for state exchanges, not the federal exchange.

Shoulda Coulda Woulda. The 4 dyed in the wool Marxist jurors are not there to protect the constitution. They are there to destroy it.

[Tzimisce]

I’m sure they’ll do the wrong thing.

And give us some condescending lecture about how taking our money and our freedom against our wills will make America a better place.

[RetiredArmy]

I doubt it with four confirmed commies on the court.

[mlo]

"Just running on experience."

The court has not heard this issue before.

It isn't the court's job to decide in advance what outcome they want and rule accordingly, and that's not what they do. They decide specific issues. The fact that Roberts decided a different issue that had the effect of upholding Obamacare does not mean that he's somehow inclined to always uphold Obamacare regardless of what issue is being decided.