Discussion for article #226039
Tricks and gimmicks hammered tediously and relentlessly in the ignoble effort to take away healthcare from millions.
Smells like death.
Republicans are a special breed of sh*t.
News flash, Sparky: There’s always a first time. And the fact that you included the word “virtually” says there’s already been a first time!
These people are immoral and the lawyers involved in this effort should be ashamed of themselves. It might, however, backfire on them politically.
I don’t understand how any judge, regardless of political party, could rule that the Federal Govt is not the head of all the individual States.
By definition:
18 US Code § 2340:
 “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Thus, US statutes defines the Federal Govt as the head of State. If you google: “the states of the world” you will see the United States is … IS … a “state.”
Additional definitions of States
state: As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states.
Thus, the Federal Govt’s US Constitution prohibits states within the United States of making war – meaning, the US Constitution recognizes the Federal Govt as the head of State.
The irony with the 2 out of 3 judges who ruled that the Federal Govt. is not head of State is essentially saying they, the DC Circuit, has no legal standing to decide this case as, they ruled, that individual States have Supremacy over the Federal Govt.
Shorter, the 2 out of 3 judges ruled that individual States have Sovereignty over the Federal Govt.
So … I suppose those judges would also allow individual States to enact war and make treaties with other States like, for instance, the State of Israel or the State of Russia.
ACA opponents have used every tactic and strategy to bring it down - including taking and asking courts to take many “sharp breaks from history.” If I am on the DC circuit court - I have a life long appointment - if I want to hear the case en banc, I will vote yes to do so.
This is why Harry Reid’s decision to use the nuclear option for judges was so important. Remember when Republicans didn’t want the vacancies filled on the DC circuit? Remember they argued the court didn’t have enough to do so it didn’t make sense to appointment more judges to it? Thank you Harry for not listening to them. This was all part of the strategy of Republicans - and they will do ANYTHING to try to get rid of the ACA.
I am not sure if the Supreme Court will wait and see if the DC Circuit takes the case en banc or just takes up the case.
I think that typically the Supreme Court waits but I am not sure in this case.
Yep. Imagine being that passionate about making sure the working poor don’t get healthcare. I’ve been watching them do their thing for decades now, but I’ll never understand them.
So would a Hail Mary pass at 4th and down on your own forty with thirty seconds on the clock be a “devious plan” to win a football game?
Seems to me, if the case were accepted by the Supremes, and the conservatives overturn it in their cynical, precedent-ignoring way (which they each explicitly disavowed in their confirmation hearings) the Democrats will run on conservative overreach for several election cycles. Seems like a way to increase their constituency by millions of newly uninsured citizens.
You know, pretty much like the way we manufacture lifelong terrorists with our military overreach overseas…
the racist republican obstruction of this black president has been a “sharp break from history”.
Are they really that oblivious to the backlash that a win for them in this case will cause? This is down-ticket, too.
“I had affordable health insurance for the first time since I was a kid and the GOP were solely responsible for taking it away.”
If they’re trying to get people to vote against them, this is a good way to go about doing it.
Tim Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee University, suggested that judges aren’t always immune to outside influence…
Gee, ya think? He “suggested”?
They got some real astute perfessers there at W & L!
The “supremes” have offered ample evidence; there’s no need to suggest that as a “theory”.
If the SCOTUS obeyed its own precedent this would be rejected outright, as drafting errors were considered not to be relevant in past rulings. Especially if the history and intent are known. Given the current “literal” approach they could claim that as an out.
It is hard to comprehend that, even if they win, that this would go over to well. The states that do not have state run exchanges are Republican and those people would suddenly be suffering. They could blame Obama, but given who directly caused this and took their insurance away. Seems like a bad move all around.
I would think that the SCOTUS should ignore the case if the DC court changes its ruling. Simply because this is not an intense legal question, it is merely a wording issue.
Of course if these operatives win, that will be the end of the Grand Old Party.
The incompetent and disastrous Terrorist and Chief, Dubya, defined not only his own Administration but captured perfectly the mission statement of the modern GOPigs:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
_____George W. Bush, Jr., 2004/08/06.
Classic Freudian Slip there.
This is what Roberts has been angling for since the original ACA decision. There is no doubt in my mind that the corrupted Supreme Court will vote 5-4 to kill the subsidies in states without exchanges. Five corrupted Justices on the Supreme Court do not care about the backlash they will get from people losing their health care OR insurance companies losing business. Those five whores ARE a death panel. They want people to die.
I think a big problem with all these stories is the assumption of a static situation, if the Supreme Court rules against the Administration. I don’t think that is true. Maybe TPM could list the States that are not currently considered to have a state exchange. My guess is that a lot of them with big populations - especially those where Obama did well - would immediately “create” a state exchange and assign HHS the responsibility for managing the sign-up portal. If that happens, how many states - and more important, people - would still live in a state without subsidies?