Posted on 02/10/2015 7:35:52 PM PST by Ray76
The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell claim the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only offers premium subsidies, as the statute says, “through an Exchange established by the State.” Members of Congress who voted for the PPACA – most recently Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and former Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) – now swear it was never their intent to condition Exchange subsidies on state cooperation.
Ironically, Casey’s and Nelson’s decision to wade into the King debate demonstrates why, when a statute is clear, courts traditionally assign no weight to what members of Congress claim they intended a law to say – especially if, as here, those claims come after a clear provision has proven problematic. While he claims he never intended to condition subsidies on states establishing Exchanges, Casey repeatedly voted to condition Exchange subsidies on state cooperation...
Perhaps more than anyone, Nelson was a pivotal figure in the debate over the PPACA. Not only did he insist on state-based Exchanges rather than a national Exchange run by the federal government, his was the deciding vote that enabled the bill to pass the Senate and become law – and he withheld his vote until his demands were met.
If you were a judge, what would you consider a better indicator of what Casey actually intended: what he repeatedly voted to enact, or what now he says to influence the courts after the clear language he voted to enact has proved problematic?
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
This would be thin reasoning indeed to justify a USSC overturn. If the USSC uses this or some other similar silly reason, I believe we can presume it has been corrupted beyond redemption and can no longer be counted upon to defend the republic. We shall soon know...
So... it’s what? A misprint?
Are the courts going to let the minority change - retroactively - a law they passed with an unprecedented level of chicanery five years ago?
What do you mean?
The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to mandate that the law be enforced as written.
The defendants are asking that the law be whatever some people want it to be.
The other contrary evidence to giving the Dems the out of “we really meant everyone gets the tax break” is that the architect is on video repeatedly saying the denial of tax breaks to voters in states that don’t set up exchanges are intentional to force states to set up the exchanges and pay for it.
IIRC in King v Burwell, the 4th circuit upheld the IRS interpretation, so the plaintiffs are asking the USSC to overturn the 4th Circuit, which affirmed the district court opinion against the plaintiffs. So, I think you are correct and I just had an incorrect impression of how the lower decisions went.
It would be helpful (and irritate the extremist leftists) if both the House and the Senate were to vote on, and submit a “sense of the House/Senate Resolution” that would affirm that in their ACA legislation, each body meant the wording to apply precisely as written.
The Circuit Courts where split. In King v Burwell the 4th Circuit upheld the IRS interpretation, in Halbig v. Burwell the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
No question about it.
And Gruber’s statements are damning.
Yes, I know. I was referring only to King v Burell in my initial response, and lost track of the sense of the district court decision.
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.