US Court of Appeals: Federal Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies Illegal

[carlfense]

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

W., H.W., Carter.

[carlfense]

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

Actually 2 Obama appointees and a George W. Bush renomination.

[LukeinNE]

 

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

Actually 2 Obama appointees and a George W. Bush renomination.

 

 

I hate to pull this card, but I'd bet just about anything that W. didn't want the headache of effectively firing a black judge.

[carlfense]

 

 

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

Actually 2 Obama appointees and a George W. Bush renomination.

 

I hate to pull this card, but I'd bet just about anything that W. didn't want the headache of effectively firing a black judge.

 

You can pull out whatever card you'd like but the fact is that W. could have nominated anyone and he chose to nominate the gentleman who wrote this opinion.

 

Plus, as knapplc hinted at, if you can use the nominating presidents to disregard the 4th Circuit opinion then it's fair play to use the nominating presidents to disregard the Halbig decision.

[carlfense]

Just got this text message from my friend:

 

"Well, one court was filled with a bunch of D appointed, liberal, activists, and the other court was correct."

 

lol.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

My prediction is that it doesn't make it past the full DC circuit. Those Obama appointments over the last couple years will probably be pivotal.

I think you're being wildly optimistic there. It only takes 4 Supremes to get a case before them, and there are 4 Supremes that very much want to burn the law to the ground. This will go before SCOTUS.

 

Or one Diana Ross?

 

Had to give ya some +1 love for the well timed funny business.

[LukeinNE]

 

You can pull out whatever card you'd like but the fact is that W. could have nominated anyone and he chose to nominate the gentleman who wrote this opinion.

 

Plus, as knapplc hinted at, if you can use the nominating presidents to disregard the 4th Circuit opinion then it's fair play to use the nominating presidents to disregard the Halbig decision.

 

 

*Shrug* I'm not concerned about "the narrative" in terms of whose appointees voted which way, I'm trying to figure out where these judges are ideologically, so as to read the tea leaves for the future. In the case of Judge Gregory, it is my suspicion that he is a liberal that Bush, for political reasons, elected not to replace. I think ultimately the path forward is pretty obvious: the full DC Circuit will overturn the panel's ruling, it'll get appealed to SCOTUS, SCOTUS will accept it, and a steady flow of shouted obscenities will come forth from Chief Justice Roberts' chambers.

[carlfense]

. . . SCOTUS will accept it, and a steady flow of shouted obscenities will come forth from Chief Justice Roberts' chambers.

If it gets that far I'm inclined to agree.

[carlfense]

The en banc review has potential to be a big win for Obamacare because it opens up the possibility of the DC Circuit Court reversing its decision. The Fourth Circuit already ruled for Obamacare in a separate, Halbig-like case. If the en banc DC Circuit ruling also rules for the government, that would bring the two appellate courts into agreement on the subsidies’ legality.

 

And that could lessen the chances of this particular issue ever reaching the Supreme Court, which typically likes to opine on issues where there is a split in circuit opinions.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/4/6105523/this-is-good-for-obamacare-dc-circuit-court-will-review-halbig

[TGHusker]

 

I do agree with you that Roberts might look for an opportunity to redeem himself from his ruling in 2012. He was generally held in disdain by conservatives after his ruling.

There is something wrong if this doesn't upset anyone who agrees.

 

Getting back into this late but I too would find it upsetting that Roberts would make decisions based on legacy. Many (on the right of course) were of the opinion that he had done so wt the 1st ruling, and if he is faced with having to cast the deciding vote again, his vote will be scrutinized from every angle. He'll be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.