Discussion for article #232944
Does anyone believe that each of these âJusticesâ are going into this with an open mind? That they will actually listen to, and consider the arguments they hear? Really?
11 Likes
We.will.see. Hard to believe they will strike down the law (in effect) given the practical consequences, butâŚ
6 Likes
So the hatersâ argument is âStates should have read the law with the potential specious arguments of teatroll litigants in mind rather than the clear intent of Congress,â basically. And itâs even odds at best whether Federalism Man nukes our system of healthcare provision just to watch the pretty flames. Patriot-tastical.
16 Likes
Not me.
1 Like
I just noticed your name. Are you in central VA, cville proper?
Not gonna happen. The fix is in. The court will vote 5-4 to kill subsides.
1 Like
Nope. The Koch Brothers issued the marching orders for the five corrupt corporate whores on the court.
1 Like
For the umpteenth time the problem is the Democrats let the Republicans get away with the LIE that there is legally such a thing as a âfederal exchangeâ when legally there is no such thing exists only state exchanges some of which are operated for the state within the state by the Federal government but they are still state exchanges selling state plans, because you cannot buy a federal plan.
For example the author writes that the King lawyers belief that the text is clear as if it were fact instead of a LIE, that is easily refuted by pointing out this section the ACA especially the part in bold:
c) Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements-
(1) IN GENERAL- Ifâ
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing Stateâ
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implementâ
(I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
14 Likes
We know that four justices voted to declare the entire ACA unconstitutional the last time SCOTUS heard a challenge to it. We know that Kennedy was one of those justices, along with Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. We know that it took votes from four justices to hear the new challenge, King v. Burwell, and itâs probably a pretty safe bet that those votes came from the same justices who voted against the ACA last time, including Kennedy.
So Iâm puzzled as to why anyone would honestly think Kennedy can be persuaded to accept the ACA this time around. I know the administration has to try, but that doesnât mean the rest of us should take that idea seriously.
I think the big focus here needs to be on keeping Roberts siding with the left wing of the bench, like he did last time. I pretty much expect him to anyway, simply because Roberts tends to put the needs of businesses ahead of all other concerns, and there are a lot of insurance companies making good profit on the federal exchanges - but his partisan allegiances put him in the category of persuadable for both sides, and I hope the administration puts as much or more effort into retaining Robertsâ vote as this article says theyâre doing for Kennedyâs.
8 Likes
Iâm not sure why you think that. If that were the case, Roberts would have joined the conservatives last time around. I expect Roberts to vote in favor of the insurance companies who are making money from the ACA - i.e., to not gut Obamacare - just like he did in the previous ACA decision.
9 Likes
Jonathan Adler, an architect of the legal challenge in King, said in an email. "In my view, states were on notice because the text of the statute is clear.
Just like all the signers and opposers of the law should have noticed, but didnât.
Youâre just plain wrong, Jonathan.
And I donât like your furniture.
4 Likes
How Obamacare Supporters Are Plotting To Win Over Anthony Kennedy
Remember the good old days when the way to win over Supreme Court justices was through actually making a sound argument about the merits of the case, history, and the law itself? Apparently now the law and precedent doesnât matter and you need to find some political/ideological weakness in the justices.
Lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices has become a travesty.
5 Likes
It would behoove us all to contact the recalcitrant justice males and remind them that 11 million Americans will be camped on the Home door steps and the Court steps with their families. and millions more in sympathy!.All .To protect their rights under the law and if foolishly struck down angrily and forcefullyâŚ
1.202.479.3211 or 1.202 479.3000 Call them out!!
Roberts cancelled the emails after the blowback from âcitizens untiedâ rape and pillage by the male justices!
2 Likes
This is what saddens me the most - that citizens have completely lost confidence in the Supreme Court of the land to hear a case with an open mind and make sound legal judgements.
Has the SCOTUS finally sunk to the same level of corruption as Congress?
8 Likes
I see Josh is having another of his âAsk me anything (that I choose to answer)â sessions tomorrow. Can someone that actually paid to be a âHiveâ member ask him why he never posts on a forum that allows comments?
I generally like this site, but find Joshâs âstream of consciousnessâ posts to be frequently distracting and embarrassing. Furthermore, he loves snark, and cherry picks to reinforce the points he wants to make (âReader âCJâ tells me thatâŚâ). I wish he would appreciate the benefits of a robust comment system. Greenwald, for example, actively participates in his own comment threads, and he is a better informed person because of it.
There is a different question of law involved in the current case than the one in the 2012 case.
I agree.
JUSTices NEED to STRIKE DOwN thIS ILLEgaL laW so THAT The MILLIONs that LIVE in abject MOOCHEry who ARE benefitiNG from this JOB KILLINg FREE goverNMEnt HANDOUT caN Experience THE quaLITY of LIfe theY Deserve!1!!!one!!1!!!
4 Likes
That sounds like the crux of what they are saying. Really, the law is fairly clear that this was not what the government wanted. If it was a carrot to dangle and an or else situation there would be an or else listed. There is no consequence other than the federal government setting an exchange up for you.
It is also hard to believe that none of the states, nor the IRS, nor CBO, nor everyone would have missed this. It was only after a conservative think tank took the message out of context that it even came into play. Until that point, nobody had said much of anything. And really the plaintiffs have to prove that the law reads clearly from start to finish and so on. If there is ambiguity than the agency gets to carry the day.
5 Likes