OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES ILLEGAL!

This will probably make it to the Supreme Court before it has any affect. If SCOTUS decides it's illegal, then it will likely backfire against the GOP. All those people who are receiving subsidies on the Federal exchanges will suddenly have to pay full freight, and the will be a huge outrage against Republicans who refuse to fix the law.

Not worried wrote:

This will probably make it to the Supreme Court before it has any affect. If SCOTUS decides it's illegal, then it will likely backfire against the GOP. All those people who are receiving subsidies on the Federal exchanges will suddenly have to pay full freight, and the will be a huge outrage against Republicans who refuse to fix the law.

Refuse to fix the law? It was an utter disaster from the beginning. Why should they fix it? Republicans were completely shunned in helping draft the legislation. The whole thing needs to be trashed.

Lucretia Portia wrote:

Republicans were completely shunned in helping draft the legislation. The whole thing needs to be trashed.

LOL, yeah, that's why they spent OVER A YEAR taking Republican ammendments and input before passing the final bill.

Lucretia Portia wrote:

Not worried wrote:

This will probably make it to the Supreme Court before it has any affect. If SCOTUS decides it's illegal, then it will likely backfire against the GOP. All those people who are receiving subsidies on the Federal exchanges will suddenly have to pay full freight, and the will be a huge outrage against Republicans who refuse to fix the law.

Refuse to fix the law? It was an utter disaster from the beginning. Why should they fix it? Republicans were completely shunned in helping draft the legislation. The whole thing needs to be trashed.

yes, and replaced with a single payer system. It was the administration's backers in Congress that compromised with the Republicans to remove the public option and make compromises of every line of the law. Hell the law's system was even inspired by a Republican Massachusetts system.

Emaciated Hobby Jogger wrote:

Lucretia Portia wrote:

Refuse to fix the law? It was an utter disaster from the beginning. Why should they fix it? Republicans were completely shunned in helping draft the legislation. The whole thing needs to be trashed.

yes, and replaced with a single payer system. It was the administration's backers in Congress that compromised with the Republicans to remove the public option and make compromises of every line of the law. Hell the law's system was even inspired by a Republican Massachusetts system.

Which is a fine example of why some things are best left up to the states.

Lucretia Portia wrote:

It was an utter disaster from the beginning. Why should they fix it?

Seriously?

Mitt wrote:

Lucretia Portia wrote:

Republicans were completely shunned in helping draft the legislation. The whole thing needs to be trashed.

LOL, yeah, that's why they spent OVER A YEAR taking Republican ammendments and input before passing the final bill.

I've never understood why republicans hate it so much, when they're the ones who got the most say on it.

A panel of the Fourth Circuit just issued a unanimous opinion ruling the other way.

The D.C. Circuit panel decision was 2-1, split along party lines. I think that it's likely that the full court will grant en banc review, vacate the panel opinion, and affirm the district court's judgment.

Of course, the Fourth Circuit could also grant en banc review, vacate the panel opinion, and reverse the district court's judgment, but I don't believe that will happen.

In sum, after the dust settles, the Obama Administration wins in both appellate courts. With no circuit split, there would probably be no very good reason for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari review, but that doesn't mean the Court won't do so. It only takes four votes to get certiorari granted. I would expect Thomas, Scalia, and Alito to vote for certiorari, and Roberts and Kennedy are also possible votes for granting cert.

I despise the partisanship in the federal appellate courts these days.

Obamacare is a Ponzi scheme. All of it is illegal.

Not according to the SCOTUS, so you're wrong.

I despise the partisanship in the Supreme Court as well. Decisions should be made on the constitutionality and on precedent but the 4 liberal judges base all of their rulings on their radical ideology.

How about omabaphones???? Can we keep them???

Um, yeah, like...seriously.

Oh no you dint wrote:

Lucretia Portia wrote:

It was an utter disaster from the beginning. Why should they fix it?

Seriously?

Republican's in congress can't win. When they don't vote with the democrats, Obama says the GOP is holding up progress and stalling everything. If the GOP adds things to democrat legislation people like you say crap like this. If the republicans really had any say, the bill would even exist.Why should the GOP agree to work with Obama or the democrats in Congress? There are different frames of mind. I am glad the GOP is stepping in and not letting Obama and the democrats have their way with the laws of the land. This is the way the checks and balances are supposed to work.

No Way wrote:

Mitt wrote:

LOL, yeah, that's why they spent OVER A YEAR taking Republican ammendments and input before passing the final bill.

I've never understood why republicans hate it so much, when they're the ones who got the most say on it.

That's not how it's supposed to work. Did you sleep through school?

Only a hyper-partisan fool would defend this Oblundercare disaster, which is why nearly all Democrats running this year are avoiding talking about it. I hope the law crashes and burns along with the rest of his joke of a presidency.

No Way wrote:

Mitt wrote:

LOL, yeah, that's why they spent OVER A YEAR taking Republican ammendments and input before passing the final bill.

I've never understood why republicans hate it so much, when they're the ones who got the most say on it.

They got so much say in it that the law didn't get a single vote from republicans in the senate, the dems needed a majority to ram it through.

Gee, sounds so cordial.

Avocado's Number wrote:In sum, after the dust settles, the Obama Administration wins in both appellate courts. With no circuit split, there would probably be no very good reason for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari review, but that doesn't mean the Court won't do so. It only takes four votes to get certiorari granted. I would expect Thomas, Scalia, and Alito to vote for certiorari, and Roberts and Kennedy are also possible votes for granting cert.

Realistically this decision (either way) comes down to interpretation of what's nothing much more than a typo in one section of a gynormous pile of paperwork.

No one involved (on either side) can honestly say they never intended there to be federal subsidies in the cases where the states deferred to the feds for the exchange. In a normal environment this would be fixed in a technical corrections bill like has been done dozens of times with Medicare and Medicaid.

We have some enterprising lawyers at some think tank find an error, then find a sympathetic state to get standing, so more lawyers generate more billable hours. In the big scheme it means nothing about the legality or constitutionality of ACA as a whole.

In reality if the suit prevails it means low income people in red states would lose their subsidy, while low income people in blue states (and Kentucky) would keep theirs. It won't "stop" Obamacare, but it will torpedo a bunch of folks (many of the Republicans) in red states. In their biggest wet dream I don't see how that works out positively for Republicans.

For sure, the large volume of inbred bigots that comprise the Republican base nowadays would be thrilled with that outcome just because they hate anything associated with Obama no matter what, but when the real fallout came down they'd be lucky to get one of their own elected dog-catcher anywhere but Texas and Kansas.