US Court of Appeals: Federal Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies Illegal

[carlfense]

Agrees with what, Carl?

Agrees that Roberts would be looking for an opportunity to "redeem himself." Or that there are 4 justices who want to gut the ACA regardless of the merits.

[carlfense]

Meh.....to that extent, every justice does the same thing no matter if they are liberal or conservative or what ever party/President appointed them.

Doesn't mean that we should excuse it from either side.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Meh.....to that extent, every justice does the same thing no matter if they are liberal or conservative or what ever party/President appointed them.

Doesn't mean that we should excuse it from either side.

 

Yeah.....but, I think the affect is relatively minimal compared to what happens in Congress or the Oval Office. It's good we have some conservative and liberal judges both on the SC. Both political sides try to push their agenda through the SC and they keep themselves in pretty good check.

[carlfense]

Yeah.....but, I think the affect is relatively minimal compared to what happens in Congress or the Oval Office. It's good we have some conservative and liberal judges both on the SC. Both political sides try to push their agenda through the SC and they keep themselves in pretty good check.

I agree . . . but if you've got a 4/4 split there's really only one judge who decides the case.

 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court should be the deciding factor in most presidential election votes. That's my focus for the foreseeable future anyways.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Yeah.....but, I think the affect is relatively minimal compared to what happens in Congress or the Oval Office. It's good we have some conservative and liberal judges both on the SC. Both political sides try to push their agenda through the SC and they keep themselves in pretty good check.

I agree . . . but if you've got a 4/4 split there's really only one judge who decides the case.

 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court should be the deciding factor in most presidential election votes. That's my focus for the foreseeable future anyways.

 

So, are you going to vote in a manner to support a fairly even split or are you going to pretty much only support politicians that will appoint liberal judges?

[LukeinNE]

 

Agrees with what, Carl?

Agrees that Roberts would be looking for an opportunity to "redeem himself." Or that there are 4 justices who want to gut the ACA regardless of the merits.

 

 

As opposed to the 4 liberals who would uphold ObamaCare if Jesus himself came down to argue the case against the Administration? I guess I never really got the complaints about how liberals voting in ideological lockstep = common sense jurisprudence and conservatives doing the same thing = radical partisan hackery. We have 9 intelligent human beings on the Court. They're some of our better legal minds, but it's silly to assume that the facts of the case are ever all that factors in to their decisions. I think for example, if Roberts was not Chief Justice, he'd have voted with the conservative wing on the first ObamaCare decision.

[carlfense]

So, are you going to vote in a manner to support a fairly even split or are you going to pretty much only support politicians that will appoint liberal judges?

Fairly even split. The justice most likely to be replaced next is probably Ginsburg. I think the US is strongest when the best ideas from both sides are brought to the table. Give me compromises, please. (If both sides are pissed it's probably a compromise.)

 

Also, FWIW, the current SCOTUS is trending more conservative.

[carlfense]

They're some of our better legal minds, but it's silly to assume that the facts of the case are ever all that factors in to their decisions.

I don't think that anyone assumes that. That is, however, the standard that we should hold them to.

[LukeinNE]

 

So, are you going to vote in a manner to support a fairly even split or are you going to pretty much only support politicians that will appoint liberal judges?

Fairly even split. The justice most likely to be replaced next is probably Ginsburg. I think the US is strongest when the best ideas from both sides are brought to the table. Give me compromises, please. (If both sides are pissed it's probably a compromise.)

 

Also, FWIW, the current SCOTUS is trending more conservative.

 

 

That Ginsburg has not retired yet is a stunner for me. At 81 and change, the odds of her living 10 more years (or at least not being forced into retirement) are pretty low. The odds of the Republicans holding the White House, Senate, or both for most of those 10 years are pretty high. From a liberal Constitutional perspective, Ginsburg getting swapped out for another conservative would be a catastrophe.

[carlfense]

From a liberal Constitutional perspective, Ginsburg getting swapped out for another conservative would be a catastrophe.

Exactly. That's why she needed to retire in 2011. It's also why she needed to retire before the midterms this year. And for gods sake it's why she needs to retire before 2016.

[carlfense]

US Court of Appeals Federal Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies Are Legal:

 

A second federal court ruled Tuesday on the legality of Obamacare's health insurance subsidies — and this one found, unlike the D.C. Circuit Court ruling hours earlier, that the subsidies are legal.

 

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday afternoon that Obamacare subsidies could be offered through federally-run insurance marketplaces.

 

"It is...clear that widely available tax credits are essential to fulfilling the Act’s primary goals and that Congress was aware of their importance when drafting the bill," the Fourth Circuit Court ruled.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926757/separate-circuit-court-rules-in-favor-of-obamacare-subsidies

[It'sNotAFakeID]

US Court of Appeals Federal Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies Are Legal:

 

A second federal court ruled Tuesday on the legality of Obamacare's health insurance subsidies — and this one found, unlike the D.C. Circuit Court ruling hours earlier, that the subsidies are legal.

 

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday afternoon that Obamacare subsidies could be offered through federally-run insurance marketplaces.

 

"It is...clear that widely available tax credits are essential to fulfilling the Act’s primary goals and that Congress was aware of their importance when drafting the bill," the Fourth Circuit Court ruled.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926757/separate-circuit-court-rules-in-favor-of-obamacare-subsidies

 

 

So, does the differences in rulings on the same matter mean that the Supreme Court will have to get involved?

[carlfense]

 

US Court of Appeals Federal Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies Are Legal:

 

A second federal court ruled Tuesday on the legality of Obamacare's health insurance subsidies — and this one found, unlike the D.C. Circuit Court ruling hours earlier, that the subsidies are legal.

 

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday afternoon that Obamacare subsidies could be offered through federally-run insurance marketplaces.

 

"It is...clear that widely available tax credits are essential to fulfilling the Act’s primary goals and that Congress was aware of their importance when drafting the bill," the Fourth Circuit Court ruled.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926757/separate-circuit-court-rules-in-favor-of-obamacare-subsidies

 

So, does the differences in rulings on the same matter mean that the Supreme Court will have to get involved?

 

My guess is that the en banc review in the DC Circuit will result in uniform rulings. (Which the Supreme Court could still review, of course)

[LukeinNE]

Unanimous, 2 Obama appointees and a Clinton appointee. This looks like another 5-4 at SCOTUS to me.

[knapplc]

Did we get a rundown on the appointments from the previous ruling, or is it only important if the judges were appointed by Democrats?