Court Strikes Down Federal Obamacare Subsidies

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by whell

Except that one could make the case that what is identified in this case as the "contradictory language" was placed there by design (as partof a political calculation) by the Bill's authors. In fact, that same language is repeated multiple times within the law.

Exactly. The language was put in there to force governors to setup exchanges & now it's coming back to bite them in their corrupt asses.
Roberts need to get his shit together this time...& I think he will.

[d-ray657]

If the full court of the D.C. Circuit reverses the panel, there will be no split among the circuits and no need for Supreme Court review.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by barbara

I see the ACA as a stepping stone to a single payer system.

I certainly hope so, although sometimes I think it will actually delay it.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

Except that one could make the case

You don't have to remind me of the kinds of dumbassed cases you can make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcC1f1jqCPI

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I certainly hope so, although sometimes I think it will actually delay it.

Probably right on both counts.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

You don't have to remind me of the kinds of dumbassed cases you can make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcC1f1jqCPI

I'm not the one that's making the case, genius. Here's a recent case with interesting quotes from SCOTUS Justice Kagan (starting from the middle of page 10 of the linked document:

But this Court does not revise legislation, as Michigan proposes, just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address. Truth be told, such anomalies often arise from statutes, if for no other reason than that Congress typically legislates by parts-addressing one thing without examining all others that might merit comparable treatment. Rejecting a similar argument that a statutory anomaly (between property and non-property taxes) made “not a whit of sense,” we explained in one recent case that “Congress wrote the statute it wrote” — meaning, a statute going so far and no further…The same could be said of IGRA’s abrogation of tribal immunity for gaming “on Indian lands.” (or the PPACA conditioning tax credits on states establishing Exchanges). This Court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that, in Michigan's words (or in the IRS's words), Congress “must have intended” something broader…And still less do we have that warrant when the consequence would be to expand an abrogation of immunity [or benefits and penalties beyond the lines drawn by Congress]…

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-515_jq2i.pdf

Seems like a rare case of clear thinking from Justice Kagan. I added the info in parenthesis to make a tie to today's decision.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It's inevitable that any law as big and broad as the ACA is going to have issues. That said, it's still better than what preceded it (if only barely).

You mean the Constitutional Professor in the White House didn't craft the legislation correctly?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You mean the Constitutional Professor in the White House didn't craft the legislation correctly?

Of course not. It was Congress that drafted the legislation, as is their job per the constitution.

Having personally written a bunch of Federal regulations and managed hundreds of Federal contracts during my career, it is indeed difficult writing contracts or regulations that have only one reasonable interpretation. Contract and regulatory law basically holds that the least reasonable interpretation (i.e., a reasonable interpretation that requires the least effort to comply) is all that a law, regulation or contract calls for. It is incumbent upon the authors of such documents to write them such that only one reasonable interpretation is possible. It's a tough task at times. It was a rare occasion that I didn't experience problems on large contracts where multiple reasonable interpretations of a provision caused a dispute. That's where the problems (and fun) arise.

That seems to be what occurred here. Two courts have rendered two reasonable yet contradictory interpretations of what the law required. In a perfect world, Congress could clarify the intent with some quickie legislation. However, with the GOP determined to ensure that poor folks don't get affordable health care, a quick fix is unlikely.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

So is the Bible.

Shit the law is 1990 pages long.

http://computationallegalstudies.com...h-of-h-r-3962/

Anything that long has got to be full of contractions.

I'll bet War and Peace is Full of Contradictions.

Or Stephen King's "The Stand".

Actually War and Peace is epic that resonates today...it is an easy read (except for the last epilogue which is a very, very thin slice of the book). The plot is great, the characters are lovable, and Tolstoy's outlook on what and who is responsible for war (which he calls murder more than once) very applicable to today. Tolstoy was the man who created the concept of non-violent resistance to bring about change and actually corresponded with Gandhi when the latter was still in South Africa. Of course we know how this idea would change the United States as well.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If the full court of the D.C. Circuit reverses the panel, there will be no split among the circuits and no need for Supreme Court review.

Regards,

D-Ray

What if the losers of the decision made by the 4th Circuit court appeal the decision to the SCOTUS before the DC court reviews the case made by the three judge panel in their jurisdiction?