Free Republic

While speaking with liberal talk-radio host Thom Hartmann last week, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said he agreed with the idea of lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 0, and essentially establishing a national, government-run health care system, claiming it “would be terrific.” Hartmann, while discussing the King v. Burwell case now before the Supreme Court, which could potentially end federal Obamacare subsidies for people in 34 states, said to Sen. Brown on Mar. 3, "Might it be a good time to start talking about alternatives, like, for example what Robert Ball, the guy who wrote the Medicare bill...

On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case challenging the IRS's decision to pay subsidies to lower-income health insurance buyers in states with federal insurance exchanges -- even though the Obamacare legislation authorizes subsidies only in states with exchanges "established by the state." The Obama administration is thus in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the president's signature law says what it doesn't say. Nevertheless, initial analyses of the oral argument suggest the government might win. The four Democratic-appointed judges seemed determined to advance arguments that, if you look at the statute as a...

One of the frustrating things about reporting on the King v. Burwell litigation is the difficulty explaining some relatively complicated legal concepts to an audience of non-lawyers. Jonathan Cohn of Huffington Post has come up with a pretty good analogy, though I don’t think it works quite the way he thinks it does. First, to recapitulate the legalese. The Affordable Care Act works by mandating that people buy health insurance. To help ensure accessibility of that insurance, the statute creates exchanges where people can shop for policies. This is done in three sections of the law. Section 1311 mandates that...

Health Reform: If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare in King v. Burwell, it will be because Justice Kennedy thinks doing otherwise would cause too much turmoil. But ObamaCare itself has already done that.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul three years ago by unexpectedly joining the liberal wing of the court, stayed largely silent in oral arguments on a new challenge that could deal a mortal blow to the law. The argument centers on whether four words in the more than 1,000-page act should be interpreted literally, which would render millions of people who live in the dozens of states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges ineligible for federal subsidies to help them purchase insurance.

11:26: When a law is ambiguous, the court often defers to the agency in charge of administering it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said just that, and that the IRS’ interpretation that subsidies were available to all was a reasonable one. Verrilli resisted questions about ambiguity, saying it was clear. But if not, he said, the agency does deserve deference. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he was concerned about giving the power to allocate billions of dollars in subsidies to an agency. It was then that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked his only...

And none of them make the IRS look very good. This week, the Supreme Court considers King v. Burwell. At issue is whether the IRS exceeded its authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by issuing a final IRS rule that expanded the application of the Act’s subsidies and mandates beyond the limits imposed by the statute. King v. Burwell is not a constitutional challenge. It challenges an IRS rule as being inconsistent with the Act it purports to implement. The case is a straightforward question of statutory interpretation. Here are seven things everyone needs to know about...

Analysis One of the most important functions of oral argument in the Supreme Court is that it can strongly shape the next round: the private deliberations among the nine Justices as they start work on a decision.  The much-awaited hearing Wednesday on the stiff new challenge to the Affordable Care Act strongly suggested that Topic A in private could well be: how bad will we make things if we rule against the government? Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who seemed decidedly more sympathetic to the government than might have been expected, worried over a constitutional blow against the states.  But even the two Justices...

The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Wednesday as it began hearing arguments on the fate of Obamacare.Justices seemed “bitterly divided” during “heated” arguments over the law, reported The New York Times. If they rule that the federal subsidies the Internal Revenue Service has doled out for Obamacare plans are illegal, millions of people would no longer be able to afford their plans, and the entire law would be crippled. The four liberal justices indicated strong support for the Obama administration’s position, in opposition to the most conservative members of the court. Those four will likely have to win over either...

See how things are going at the link.... "The challengers’ attorney Michael Carvin barely got a dozen words out before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interrupted him to ask about his plaintiffs’ standing." "Justice Anthony Kennedy says he sees 'a serious constitutional problem' in the idea Congress would force states to set up exchanges or risk their residents losing tax credits."

Supporters of ObamaCare think they’ve found a fatal flaw in the GOP-led legal challenge to the healthcare law at the Supreme Court. Legal experts in favor of the Affordable Care Act say new information unearthed about the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell could derail the case before the justices have a chance to rule. “The case made by the [Affordable Care Act]’s opponents is unraveling around them,” Brianne Good and Joey Meyer, legal experts from the progressive group Constitutional Accountability Center, wrote in a blog this week. The standing of the four plaintiffs in the case has come under intense...

The Obamacare-IRS ScandalFrench Terror Attacks Tied To FBI Asset? New Docs: Top IRS official may have obstructed investigations into the IRS scandal The Obamacare-IRS Scandal There is a lawsuit that could bring President Obama’s federal healthcare crashing down under the weight of its own lawlessness. A few weeks ago, we filed anamicus brief in support of plaintiffs who are making the plain obvious point to the United States Supreme Court that President Obama (or any other president) should not be permitted to rewrite federal statues in brazen violation of the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers. The plaintiffs in David King...

Conservative radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin has submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in King v. Burwell, the Obamacare legal case that will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 5, 2015. The case addresses whether "the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Essentially, the case looks at whether federal subsidies are legal and available to people living in states that did not set up their...

Group asks High Court to affirm the limits on the executive branch’s ability to disregard federal statutes, reaffirm separation of powers (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on December 24, 2014, it filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the IRS and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury over a decision by the agencies to ignore a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The lawsuit seeks specifically to prevent the IRS from providing refundable tax credits to individuals who purchase health care coverage through...

Recent news coverage concerning Obamacare’s legal difficulties has been dominated by King v. Burwell, which challenges the controversial IRS decision to issue subsidies and penalties through federally created insurance exchanges in 34 states that refused set up PPACA “marketplaces.” The Supreme Court announced last month that it would take up King, and it will hear oral arguments in March. The alacrity with which the Court took up the case, upon which it will hand down a ruling in June, has rendered the law’s supporters nearly hysterical. But King is by no means the only legal threat Obamacare will face next...

On Friday, the justices of the Supreme Court held a conference to review petitions for certiorari and other procedural matters. Among the most-watched petitions before the justices was that in King v. Burwell, a challenge to the legality of an IRS rule authorizing tax credits for the purchase of health insurance in federally established exchanges. This morning, the Court released the order list from the conference, and King was absent. Rampant speculation about what this could mean ensued. (See Chris Walker’s walk through the possibilities here.) Shortly thereafter, a notation on the King docket indicated that King has been relisted...