Supremes to Hear Challenge on Obama Care

[Cerebrum123]

Here's an interesting 2 minute presentation of the situation from Vox:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/8/7175879...-gut-obamacare

I didn't know he was still around.



Obviously a trustworthy source.

[Cow Poke]

Here's an interesting 2 minute presentation of the situation from Vox:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/8/7175879...-gut-obamacare

[Sam]

But as your own link makes clear, the decision is a frankly political one, and not a legal decision at all. It was Republicans who made this up, and it was Republican judges who decided that ideology trumps sanity, and it will be Republican judges who make any final decision.

And so the situation is exactly as I wrote - the SCOTUS will sit as a "super legislature" to make political policy, voting along straight party lines. The only "legal justification" is the DESIRE to gut the ACA. That's the nature of politics. I simply cannot imagine Scalia letting the ACA continue simply because (a) it's perfectly legal policy; and (b) it is clearly the intent of Congress. Those details have never mattered to him before, and they won't this time either.

I largely agree with that assessment, especially as it relates to this ridiculous case; the part I didn't agree with was the idea that a SCOTUS review was required at this point. There's currently no court split, as the Halbig ruling was put on hold pending an en banc review and so no necessary reason for SCOTUS to take up the issue. That four justices looked at King and decided the case merited further review supports your argument, as the only reason to review King would be that at least these four justices thought its ruling was in error. And the only legal reason to believe King was in error is an irrational partisan animus and desire to damage the law in any way possible.

[phank]

There's no justification for SCOTUS granting cert on this. It's an embarrassment of the highest order that four members of the highest court are entertaining the "Spain was invaded by the Moops" argument.

But as your own link makes clear, the decision is a frankly political one, and not a legal decision at all. It was Republicans who made this up, and it was Republican judges who decided that ideology trumps sanity, and it will be Republican judges who make any final decision.

And so the situation is exactly as I wrote - the SCOTUS will sit as a "super legislature" to make political policy, voting along straight party lines. The only "legal justification" is the DESIRE to gut the ACA. That's the nature of politics. I simply cannot imagine Scalia letting the ACA continue simply because (a) it's perfectly legal policy; and (b) it is clearly the intent of Congress. Those details have never mattered to him before, and they won't this time either.

[Sam]

I agree. Perhaps the fact that two appellate courts have come to opposite conclusions requres some sort of unifying decision. But to my mind, something like this is the very essence of what the court has called the "political thicket". Essentially disallowing the use of healthcare.gov would kill the entire program, since it would deny the vast majority of Americans any access to it. Whether or not the program deserves to be killed notwithstanding, doing so would amount to straight partisan political legislation. Do the justices really WANT to wade in and basically become a "super-legislature", voting on national political policies along straight party lines? Because clearly, that's what we'll be looking at.

It doesn't since the Halbig v. Burwell ruling was put on hold pending an en banc review; it's widely thought that the full court ruling would invalidate the previous ruling, leaving no split. That's widely assumed because no one in the administration, legislature, state governorships, or news media intently following the ACA thought that subsidies would not be available for the federal exchanges. It simply was not a matter of consideration. This is supported by internal communications between lawmakers crafting the bill at the time and by memos released in early 2010. The context of the law was clearly intended to mean that subsidies were to be available in state or federal exchanges. The opposing interpretation is to suggest that lawmakers wanted to punish the residents of states that didn't set up their own exchanges, thereby putting pressure on those states to do so — and they wanted that threat of punishment to be so secret that it was never mentioned during the creation or implementation of the ACA by the administration or the legislators.

There's no justification for SCOTUS granting cert on this. It's an embarrassment of the highest order that four members of the highest court are entertaining the "Spain was invaded by the Moops" argument.

[phank]

Interesting that the Supremes have decided to hear this case.

I agree. Perhaps the fact that two appellate courts have come to opposite conclusions requres some sort of unifying decision. But to my mind, something like this is the very essence of what the court has called the "political thicket". Essentially disallowing the use of healthcare.gov would kill the entire program, since it would deny the vast majority of Americans any access to it. Whether or not the program deserves to be killed notwithstanding, doing so would amount to straight partisan political legislation. Do the justices really WANT to wade in and basically become a "super-legislature", voting on national political policies along straight party lines? Because clearly, that's what we'll be looking at.

[Cow Poke]

Source: NYTimes

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act, potentially imperiling President Obama’s signature legislative achievement two years after it survived a different challenge in the court by a single vote.

The case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, concerns tax subsidies that are central to the operation of the health care law. According to the challengers, those subsidies are improperly being given in states that have decided not to run the marketplaces for insurance coverage known as exchanges. Under the law, the federal government has stepped in to run exchanges in those states.

If the challengers are right, millions of people receiving subsidies would become ineligible for them, destabilizing and perhaps dooming the law.

The central question in the case is what to make of a provision in the law limiting subsidies to “an exchange established by the state.”

© Copyright Original Source

Interesting that the Supremes have decided to hear this case.