Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

Jem, I think you're right as usual and I am totally wrong! as usual!!! According to the article I just read in the Washington Post it was two conflicting rulings in separate cases. (It was reported in the popular media as having been a reversal.) Yes likely headed up to the Supreme Court, where the Richmond Ruling will be upheld, I trust. It seems to me a case built, more or less, on legal hair splitting. I'd be annoyed were I a Supreme Court judge. Fortunately for the Country, I'm Not. :D

However I noted from the Post Article that the administration has asked for an en bank ruling from the full D.C. Appeals court. If they agree to that, then the three judge panel decision in the D.C. Appeals court will almost certainly be reversed by the full panel of judges, as democrat appointees dominate. Then the D.C. and 4th Circuits will agree. and the case will likely not be heard by the Supreme Court. That's what I think will happen. What do you think will happen.
 
If Roberts wants to continue to go down in history as the author of the one of the worst most damaging to our liberty, twisted and contrived rulings in U.S. Supreme Court history you are correct the Supremes will turn it down.

If Roberts has guts they will fast track it.

I suspect... Roberts will make sure the ruling comes out after Obama leaves office and it will gut Obamacare.

piezoe said:
Jem, I think you're right as usual and I am totally wrong! as usual!!! According to the article I just read in the Washington Post it was two conflicting rulings in separate cases. (It was reported in the popular media as having been a reversal.) Yes likely headed up to the Supreme Court, where the Richmond Ruling will be upheld, I trust. It seems to me a case built, more or less, on legal hair splitting. I'd be annoyed were I a Supreme Court judge. Fortunately for the Country, I'm Not. :D

However I noted from the Post Article that the administration has asked for an en bank ruling from the full D.C. Appeals court. If they agree to that, then the three judge panel decision in the D.C. Appeals court will almost certainly be reversed by the full panel of judges, as democrat appointees dominate. Then the D.C. and 4th Circuits will agree. and the case will likely not be heard by the Supreme Court. That's what I think will happen. What do you think will happen.
More...
 
piezoe said:
Jem, I think you're right as usual and I am totally wrong! as usual!!! According to the article I just read in the Washington Post it was two conflicting rulings in separate cases. (It was reported in the popular media as having been a reversal.) Yes likely headed up to the Supreme Court, where the Richmond Ruling will be upheld, I trust. It seems to me a case built, more or less, on legal hair splitting. I'd be annoyed were I a Supreme Court judge. Fortunately for the Country, I'm Not. :D

However I noted from the Post Article that the administration has asked for an en bank ruling from the full D.C. Appeals court. If they agree to that, then the three judge panel decision in the D.C. Appeals court will almost certainly be reversed by the full panel of judges, as democrat appointees dominate. Then the D.C. and 4th Circuits will agree. and the case will likely not be heard by the Supreme Court. That's what I think will happen. What do you think will happen.
More...

Just burn the best version to disk and give it free to the states without their own exchange. Those states that decline it then go on the record with their own residents.
 
Lol. Via CNN. On the difference between intent and what is written.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Ia02fGpUQfU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
1. we need a show as good as seinfeld again.

2. I think Roberts will take this down eventually. Nobody with his background wants to go down as liberty's traitor. So I am advising the establishment to work on the following.
by the way this will save democrats from being blown out too. It will be funny when boehner and mcconnell have to come clean and admit they are sellouts.

the feds pay the insurance companies for a stripped down version of basic coverage - which the states and feds are essentially providing to the poor anyway plus discounted drugs ... and force the insurance companies to compete nationally on supplemental and luxury plans.

it should work out to be cheaper for the govt and better for the tax payers and the insurance companies. The drug companies might take a bit of hit but they got such a bonus from part d they have to deal.

3. I propose it because somehow or someone I think the establishment is going to kill with this obamcare thing... and frankly many of us can not afford the premiums coming down the pike.
it could kill the economy.



Ricter said:
Lol. Via CNN. On the difference between intent and what is written.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Ia02fGpUQfU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
More...
 
The democrats intended for the law to work exactly as written. The reason they wrote it that way was because they originally thought that it would provide incentive for each state to set up their own exchange. They never intended to subsidise people who didnt set up their own exchange. They didnt anticipate two thirds of the states opting out, it was their own fault for writing the law that way.
Ricter said:
Lol. Via CNN. On the difference between intent and what is written.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Ia02fGpUQfU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
More...
 
jem said:
wow... what a diseased mind the guys at salon have.
tortured legal logic.
1. the law was written that way on purpose it was not a mistake or a scrivener's error.

2. the court followed basic judicial procedure. Constitutionally speaking, the court can not be rewriting the law... the president already has told us that is reserved the the Obama administration.
More...

Yeah, and now these leftwing assholes have the nerve to call the judges who ruled against it "Activist judges" because they are enforcing the law exactly as written, exactly as intended. There simply is no reasoning with these people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top