Huge Stakes As Supreme Court Takes Third Crack At Obamacare.

[lockedout]

This time, the high court will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit engineered by conservative and libertarian think tanks that claims a handful of words deep within the Affordable Care Act -- “an exchange established by the state” -- makes it illegal for the government to issue tax credits for health insurance in more than 30 states with federal health insurance exchanges.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6793228.html

[Wells]

I'm a little surprised the Court decided to hear a case made is such clearly bad faith. That said I'm not sure how they can find in favor of the plaintiffs on this one. Court doctrine clearly defers to common understanding of the law on issues like this. Everyone understood the law to provide subsidies for all states. The law was written intending to do so. No one thought otherwise until conservative interest groups shopped around for a plaintiff.

[lockedout]

I'm a little surprised the Court decided to hear a case made is such clearly bad faith. That said I'm not sure how they can find in favor of the plaintiffs on this one. Court doctrine clearly defers to common understanding of the law on issues like this. Everyone understood the law to provide subsidies for all states. The law was written intending to do so. No one thought otherwise until conservative interest groups shopped around for a plaintiff.

If it was so clear I doubt the Supreme court would hear it, it's probably a little deeper then the article talks about.

[Wells]

If it was so clear I doubt the Supreme court would hear it, it's probably a little deeper then the article talks about.

Intent is clear. The people who drafted the law have said as much. Did you ever hear anywhere that the law only provided subsidies to certain states before this case?

[Xisa]

If it was so clear I doubt the Supreme court would hear it, it's probably a little deeper then the article talks about.

No, it's really not. This is about a conservative think tank finding a way to present the case that an error in wording in the ACA meant that the Democrats really wanted to ACA to be unconstitutional and fail.

It's obviously nonsense, using the lettering of the law to invalidate the spirit of it. That's the Modus Operandi of the modern Republican party however, so I can't say I'm all that surprised.

[lockedout]

Intent is clear. The people who drafted the law have said as much. Did you ever hear anywhere that the law only provided subsidies to certain states before this case?

Intent doesn't matter, what is written in the law and how it's carried out matter.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's really not. This is about a conservative think tank finding a way to present the case that an error in wording in the ACA meant that the Democrats really wanted to ACA to be unconstitutional and fail.

It's obviously nonsense, using the lettering of the law to invalidate the spirit of it. That's the Modus Operandi of the modern Republican party however, so I can't say I'm all that surprised.

Please it's the same thing on both sides of the isle.

[Wells]

Intent doesn't matter, what is written in the law and how it's carried out matter.

That's not true. The court defers to intent and understood meaning whenever it can. Especially under Roberts, who is generally bearish on overturning any law.

There's also the issue of questionable standing for all the plaintiffs.

[THE Bigzoman]

No, it's really not. This is about a conservative think tank finding a way to present the case that an error in wording in the ACA meant that the Democrats really wanted to ACA to be unconstitutional and fail.

It's obviously nonsense, using the lettering of the law to invalidate the spirit of it. That's the Modus Operandi of the modern Republican party however, so I can't say I'm all that surprised.

I caught glimpses of this months ago and dismissed it as hogwash.

I know common law setting precedents makes shit stupid, but i'm still shocked to hear that this is a clear cut case of nitpicking.

Care to go into more detail about it.

Can't afford shit for health care, so i'm on state medicaid. But since they don't pay a dime for my mental health medication so i'm still paying out of pocket just for services to ensure that i'm as productive as I can be.

[Xisa]

Intent doesn't matter, what is written in the law and how it's carried out matter.

- - - Updated - - -



Please it's the same thing on both sides of the isle.

Intent absolutely matters. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment means we can only have guns to form a militia.

[Wells]

If anyone has anything indicating that the law was understood to only provide subsidies to certain states prior to this lawsuit being cooked up I'd love to see it.

[Xisa]

If anyone has anything indicating that the law was understood to only provide subsidies to certain states prior to this lawsuit being cooked up I'd love to see it.

It doesn't exist. This is a desperate cry to appease a rabid voting base that literally has no factual understanding of how anything works in the world they live in.

[Rucati]

Third time's the charm, right? If it doesn't work the first two times just keep wasting your time, money and energy on it so that maybe your party will stand a chance in the next election. Of course, if it doesn't work the third time either then people are probably going to be kind of upset that your party continues to waste resources on something they clearly can't change.

Guess we'll see.

[Crissi]

and lets watch everyone bitch if they rule it a technicality and suddenly make millions of people insurance less. Great thinking there Republicans, you're going to be directly blamed for that.

[Wells]

Remember, it doesn't take a majority to decide to hear a suit.

[Xisa]

Third time's the charm, right? If it doesn't work the first two times just keep wasting your time, money and energy on it so that maybe your party will stand a chance in the next election. Of course, if it doesn't work the third time either then people are probably going to be kind of upset that your party continues to waste resources on something they clearly can't change.

Guess we'll see.

No, they won't. The Tea Party base of the Republican Party are Puritans: All they want is ideological purity. See shutting down the Goddamn Department of Homeland Security to stop Obama on immigration.

That's right, the base of party of national defense was willing to gut and disenfranchise the Department responsible for "Protecting us from Terrorists" for ideological purity. It's beyond any normal level of insanity.

[lockedout]

Intent absolutely matters. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment means we can only have guns to form a militia.

Unless of course you read after the comma.

[Wells]

No, they won't. The Tea Party base of the Republican Party are Puritans: All they want is ideological purity. See shutting down the Goddamn Department of Homeland Security to stop Obama on immigration.

That's right, the base of party of national defense was willing to gut and disenfranchise the Department responsible for "Protecting us from Terrorists" for ideological purity. It's beyond any normal level of insanity.

Boehner very quietly caved on that one in the shadow of Bibi's speech.

[lockedout]

Remember, it doesn't take a majority to decide to hear a suit.

No but they are pretty picky on what they do hear. I forget but don't they only hear a certain amount of predetermined cases per year?

[Wells]

No but they are pretty picky on what they do hear. I forget but don't they only hear a certain amount of predetermined cases per year?

Nothing formal. I think there's pretty clearly a 4 justice bloc on the court though that wants this law gone. They're hardly above politics.

[Xisa]

Unless of course you read after the comma.

The wording is ambiguous at best. The spirit is undeniable, hence why it holds up to scrutiny. Intent is a well-established part of Lawmaking and Legal outcome. Saying otherwise is just an attempt to shoehorn an agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing formal. I think there's pretty clearly a 4 justice bloc on the court though that wants this law gone. They're hardly above politics.

The Supreme Court is almost exclusively nothing BUT politics. There are only 2 judges that tend to think for themselves. The rest of them are sellouts as big as any Congressman or Congresswoman.