Discussion: D.C. Circuit Will Re-Hear Decision Against Obamacare Subsidies

Discussion for article #227224

Spoiler alert:

The decision is reversed.

31 Likes

DAMMIT, DON’T WRECK IT FOR ME!!

ARGH!!

I hate this book now!

29 Likes

Yep !

1 Like

Maybe you have to have worked on a court – a real issue here, for me, is that the second vote in the majority opinion came from a district judge sitting by designation. The court should view it as unacceptable for the decisive vote on such a momentous issue to be that of a judge who is not actually a member of the court. The decision should reflect the consensus of the permanent members of the court, and the two permanent judges were split. In my view, the full court is duty bound to review the original opinion if only for that reason.

18 Likes

But the Repubs just want to repeal and, and, and, well repeal and return.

They can’t get to their real goal of shitting on all of America if they don’t hurt millions and millions of Americans first.

9 Likes

Obvious now where the Death Panel presides.

9 Likes

And always has yo.

3 Likes

I’m not a lawyer, nor have much of a clue about law at all, but is it possible for this court to create a ruling that is so iron clad that the Supreme Court can’t overturn it?

Basically, I’d love to see this court slap the people who brought this suit so hard that they realize it is game over and just go away.

4 Likes

Briefly, no. The Supreme Court is the final authority. No lower court can write an “iron clad” ruling that would prevent the Supremes from acting.

5 Likes

In a normal world where the normal rules still applied, the Supremes would not take this case in the absence of a Circuit split. However, in the world we live in, there are four Obama Derangement Syndrome afflicted justices who’ll probably vote to grant cert. And that’s all it takes to get there, at which point, John Roberts will again have to decide whether he wants to spend all the court’s credibility on this one thing, or whether he’d rather preserve it and use it for his great work of systematically, and covertly, hollowing out every precedent that in any way benefits anyone other than rich white people under the guise of “interpretation.”

18 Likes

But a clear victory in an en banc re-hearing would require some serious pretzel logic for the SC to overturn it.

They could, of course—but they’d look really foolish and hyper-partisan if they did it.

7 Likes

You nailed Roberts’ agenda perfectly.

You win this thread.

7 Likes

As someone who received her law degree from Law & Order University, my understanding is that SCOTUS would have no reason to take up the case since all the lower courts would essentially be in agreement. Without there being some disagreement t settle among the circuit courts, it would be extraordinarily suspect for SCOTUS to even take the case. Is that true or is my L&O degree failing me again?

6 Likes

Very, very rare for the Supremes to take up a case when there is unanimity in the Appeals Courts. This is why I think that the Supremes will never take up a gay marriage case. When there is unanimity in the Appeals rulings, the Supremes can duck a “hot” topic.

4 Likes

Especially when Roberts wrote the majority opinion finding the ACA constitutional.

5 Likes

If the decision is overturned, all of the circuit court cases will be in harmony and the Supreme Court probably won’t take the case.

This lawsuit is complete fucking bullshit and a glaring abuse of the judicial system. It’s a goddamn travesty that I’m even reading about it. Fucking teabaggercon douchebags. Sweet Geezus what I’d do to those pigfuckers if I could get away with it.

3 Likes

looks like the courts turned the republicon wet dream into them just pissin themselves

Another Benghazi distraction.