Looks Like ObamaCare goes back to the Supreme Court

2»

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    You're kidding me right? **** in transcripts from Meet the Press alone there has to be hours of supporting evidence. Maybe the 4th circuit didn't need them.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    An appellate court cannot consider new evidence that is not already part of the record.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Such evidence if it existed, would have to be advanced by a party to the litigation and considered by the federal district judge who presided over the litigation. Regardless, facts are not important in this type of lawsuit. THIS IS A LEGAL DISPUTE.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    And let's also be honest these two political hacks did not arrive at their decision by any deep regard for the law either. They did it because they knew it would be the death of the ACA.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    sherb wrote: »
    Such evidence if it existed, would have to be advanced by a party to the litigation.


    This, if it existed, why wasn't it presented to a panel of three judges nominated by Democrats?

    I guess it must mean that the Administration is just full up with morons.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    And let's also be honest these two political hacks did not arrive at their decision by any deep regard for the law either. They did it because they knew it would be the death of the ACA.

    But you would be perfectly fine if a larger group of political hacks arrived at the opposite conclusion. Because that's all the en banc review guarantees: democratically appointed judges will decide it the other way.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    And let's also be honest these two political hacks did not arrive at their decision by any deep regard for the law either. They did it because they knew it would be the death of the ACA.

    Here, let me help...

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+Chevron+deference%3F
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    You just made my point.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    But you would be perfectly fine if a larger group of political hacks arrived at the opposite conclusion. Because that's all the en banc review guarantees: democratically appointed judges will decide it the other way.

    They will decide it the other way because they understand the intent and purpose of the law and know it is chicken **** to kill it because of a typo.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    But you would be perfectly fine if a larger group of political hacks arrived at the opposite conclusion. Because that's all the en banc review guarantees: democratically appointed judges will decide it the other way.

    I think if I made a similar comment about you, there would be some comment like, "how dare you!"
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Yeah, well, I'm the prickly sort.

    Am I wrong, though? You would be content if the en banc panel reversed the decision, right?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    Yes but it would be because killing a bill over a typo would be wrong.

    I would be happier if I didn't have to worry over who appointed them and they did it because that is the right thing to do.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Spoke with a friend I've mentioned before.

    Says the D.C. panel is right (friend is a noted conservative). Says Baucus did bring up the idea that not giving subsidies on the federal exchanges would force states to set up their own...so that's not out of thin air. Says there was no discussion of equivalence.

    Complete effing mess...
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,308 Senior Member
    Well it is a **** good thing I am not a lawyer or in that profession because typos actually do matter.

    It is pretty **** common for people to get of on legal technicalities...including typos. I know, a relative of mine who yes, was guilty as all hell for a DUI offense, got off because of a typo. I don't remember the exact details, but it was something really stupid like he put AM instead of PM or some crap.

    Anyway, ole drunky got off completely because of it.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    It wasn't a typo. It was poorly written and nobody had read it anyway.

    It was 18 months after it had passed before some Investor's Business Daily reporter actually read the thing and noticed that the subsidies for people on the federal exchanges had never actually been authorized.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    Is there language specifically stating that people on the federal exchanges do not get subsidized?

    Has any congressperson come forward and said that the judge was right we meant it as an incentive for the states and we had no intention of subsidizing anyone that was on the federal exchanges?

    There is reading it and then there is proof reading it. It is a chickenshit attack on the law plain and simple.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    It wasn't a typo. It was poorly written and nobody had read it anyway.

    It was 18 months after it had passed before some Investor's Business Daily reporter actually read the thing and noticed that the subsidies for people on the federal exchanges had never actually been authorized.

    That means that in 18 months not a single congressperson commented on there being a discrepancy between the bill as enacted and congress' intention.

    You would think that if congress had specifically intended people on the federal exchanges not receive a subsidy, someone would have said something.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    At what point do you accept that what a congress person says now doesn't matter when it comes to the court making a decision? If you don't actually want to read the opinion, try taking Sherb's word for it. He is a lawyer you know.

    The law clearly states that people on the state exchanges will receive subsidies if they have certain income levels. The law does not say that people on the federal exchanges will receive subsidies. The tax code says charities get tax breaks, it doesn't say others don't. Can the IRS suddenly decide that pharmaceutical companies can get those same tax breaks because the law doesn't say they can't?

    It's absolutely an attack on the law by people who believe it is unconstitutional. But look at it this way, the law should never have been found constitutional to begin with.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    That means that in 18 months not a single congressperson commented on there being a discrepancy between the bill as enacted and congress' intention.

    You would think that if congress had specifically intended people on the federal exchanges not receive a subsidy, someone would have said something.

    I absolutely postively agree. But that doesn't matter.

    At some point you're going to understand that everybody here agrees that that was Congress' intent. I bet even the D.C. court believes that was Congress' intent.

    But at some point you may understand that what we're really discussing is whether the D.C. Court made the correct decision given all the other precedents set by the court including the Chevron doctrine - which you continue to ignore.

    You want to convince me of something? Read up on Chevron deference and tell me why the D.C. court should give the IRS deference.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    Somehow I think if this were a mistake about a tax cut, it would matter.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    My friend tells me it only takes four justices to issue a writ of certiorari.

    Hello, Supreme Court. Poor Justice Roberts.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    WSJ editors urging the lawyer who lost in the 4th Circuit to appeal to the Supreme Court immediately.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven, we can feel your glee through the interwebs.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.