Another Court Strikes Down Obamacare Subsidies In 36 States

[Zander]

Obamacare will be undone (by itself) when millions of schmucks do their taxes in 2015 and realize that they owe money......

 

[BlackFlag]

Like a libtard knows what is constitutional. Obuthurtcare is a joke.

Yea the libtard commiecrats have PISSED all over the constitution and America! You better learn spanish and get a compass muchachos because we'll all be worshipping Mecca in spanish 5 times a day once Hussein Soetero is through wiping his Kenyan ass with us!!!

^ I can do it better.

 

[The Rabbi]

In the end, Benghazi will bite the Administration in the ass like a berserk alligator. Period.

Oh come on we've been hearing that for years.

June 1972--Arrests at the Watergate
August 1974--Richard Nixon becomes first president to resign.
Any questions?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Couldnt happen at a better time, right before the election.
We will shove Obamacare up Democrat ass every day.

You sure about that? Because all I've heard about from the right is Benghazi... and when that didn't work ISIS... and now that's fading away into Ebola... is Obamacare next?

It's the IRS
It's Obamacare
It's the worst economic performance post recession since WW2
It's foodstamps
It's disaster in Iran
It's disaster in Ukraine
It's disaster in the far East
It's Ebola
It's Benghazi
It's the VA scandal
It's the Bergdahl scandal
It's the ISIS crisis

There have been threads on these and more for weeks. Just because you dont pay attention doesnt make them fake.

He is a libtard, he is fake.

 

[BlackFlag]

June 1972--Arrests at the Watergate
August 1974--Richard Nixon becomes first president to resign.
Any questions?

We'll see

 

[Hossfly]

The Federal Subsidies are clearly against the law in many States. It's very clear by the wording of the law. There is no way the SCotUS will go against this ruling.

People on USMB should watch and read the news instead of some Liberal blog and MSNBC.

Another federal court has struck down an IRS rule that gives Obamacare subsidies to customers in federally-run exchanges.

The United States District Court in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday in Pruitt v. Burwell that the IRS rule extending health insurance tax credits to Obamacare exchange customers in states that chose not to build their own exchange is illegal.

The Obama administration’s rule is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or other not in accordance with law,” according to federal district Judge Ronald White.

Second Court Strikes Down Obamacare Subsidies In Federal Exchanges The Daily Caller

 

[The Rabbi]

The Federal Subsidies are clearly against the law in many States. It's very clear by the wording of the law. There is no way the SCotUS will go against this ruling.

People on USMB should watch and read the news instead of some Liberal blog and MSNBC.

Another federal court has struck down an IRS rule that gives Obamacare subsidies to customers in federally-run exchanges.

The United States District Court in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday in Pruitt v. Burwell that the IRS rule extending health insurance tax credits to Obamacare exchange customers in states that chose not to build their own exchange is illegal.

The Obama administration’s rule is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or other not in accordance with law,” according to federal district Judge Ronald White.

Second Court Strikes Down Obamacare Subsidies In Federal Exchanges The Daily Caller

That there's a question is itself disturbing. The law was very clear. Subsidies went only to states with their own exchanges. The legislative intent was clear: to encourage states to set their own exchanges. So how can the federal bureaucracy simply overturn the law of the land?

 

[AmericanFirst]

June 1972--Arrests at the Watergate
August 1974--Richard Nixon becomes first president to resign.
Any questions?

We'll see

I didn't post that, The Rabbi did. Don't know what happened.

 

[BlindBoo]

In the end, Benghazi will bite the Administration in the ass like a berserk alligator. Period.

Oh come on we've been hearing that for years.

June 1972--Arrests at the Watergate
August 1974--Richard Nixon becomes first president to resign.
Any questions?

Yeah WTF does that have to do with an attack on the US in Benghazi?

 

[The Rabbi]

In the end, Benghazi will bite the Administration in the ass like a berserk alligator. Period.

Oh come on we've been hearing that for years.

June 1972--Arrests at the Watergate
August 1974--Richard Nixon becomes first president to resign.
Any questions?

Yeah WTF does that have to do with an attack on the US in Benghazi?

I realize making inferences is impossible for you so I'll have to spell it out.
Just because something doesnt happen immediately before the commercial break doesnt mean it wont ever happen. It took 2 years from the Watergate break in before Nixon resigned. And that was with a press that hated Nixon and wanted him to fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do it, but the American people will not let it be abolished.

This will drive democrats to the polls in larger numbers than usual.

The subsidies are clearly constitutional, and Roberts court will so rule if it gets that far.

Like a libtard knows what is constitutional. Obuthurtcare is a joke.

Those of you who think like the 1950s will find the elections the joke turned back on you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right continues to dance down Crazy Street.

No matter how much the rest of America likes or does not like ACA, the rest of America hates the far right.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The ACA has not caused any of the disasters that USMB nutters predicted.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Do it, but the American people will not let it be abolished.

This will drive democrats to the polls in larger numbers than usual.

The subsidies are clearly constitutional, and Roberts court will so rule if it gets that far.

Like a libtard knows what is constitutional. Obuthurtcare is a joke.

Those of you who think like the 1950s will find the elections the joke turned back on you.

If the dimwads prevail it will be a joke.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm really wondering how Republicans think this will help them, in terms of elections.

It's not the blue-state people who'll be losing thousands of dollars over this.

 

[bendog]

Well, until Roberts rewrote the law by saying states could keep Medicaid money without expanding Medicaid, congress assumed we'd have 50 state exchanges. Regardless, the gop would do well not to give Hillary an issue of the gop taking away insurance subsidies.

 

[boedicca]

So Obama violated the laws yet again....

And now millions are losing subsidies they thought they were getting.. Because Obama Lied and broke the laws.

Another court strikes down Obamacare subsidies in 36 states - Vox

The Eastern District ruled on Pruitt v. Burwell, a suit brought by Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma. Curiously, this suit was filed prior to Oklahoma's decision to default to a federally-run exchange — suggesting that at least some state officials understood that subsidies could be yanked away from their citizens at some point in the future, if the attorney general's lawsuit prevailed.
Consistent with the DC Circuit's July ruling on Halbig v. Burwell, the Eastern District struck down subsidies on federally-run exchanges, asserting that the clear language of the law forecloses any interpretation authorizing those subsidies.

Judge Ronald White writes,
This is a case of statutory interpretation. "The text is what it is, no matter which side benefits." Such a case (even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal) does not "gut" or "destroy" anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act as written. Congress is free to amend the ACA to provide for tax credits in both state and federal exchanges, if that is the legislative will. As the Act presently stands, "vague notions of a statute’s ‘basic purpose’ are nonetheless inadequate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issue under consideration" ...

The court holds that the IRS Rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C), or otherwise is an invalid implementation of the ACA, and is hereby vacated.

Excellent news! It's nice to see that the Judiciary has not been completely compromised by Progs who want to rewrite The Constitution.

 

[boedicca]

Couldnt happen at a better time, right before the election.
We will shove Obamacare up Democrat ass every day.

You sure about that? Because all I've heard about from the right is Benghazi... and when that didn't work ISIS... and now that's fading away into Ebola... is Obamacare next?

It's the IRS
It's Obamacare
It's the worst economic performance post recession since WW2
It's foodstamps
It's disaster in Iran
It's disaster in Ukraine
It's disaster in the far East
It's Ebola
It's Benghazi
It's the VA scandal
It's the Bergdahl scandal
It's the ISIS crisis

There have been threads on these and more for weeks. Just because you dont pay attention doesnt make them fake.

And now it's also The Secret Service!

 

[bendog]

So Obama violated the laws yet again....

And now millions are losing subsidies they thought they were getting.. Because Obama Lied and broke the laws.

Another court strikes down Obamacare subsidies in 36 states - Vox

The Eastern District ruled on Pruitt v. Burwell, a suit brought by Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma. Curiously, this suit was filed prior to Oklahoma's decision to default to a federally-run exchange — suggesting that at least some state officials understood that subsidies could be yanked away from their citizens at some point in the future, if the attorney general's lawsuit prevailed.
Consistent with the DC Circuit's July ruling on Halbig v. Burwell, the Eastern District struck down subsidies on federally-run exchanges, asserting that the clear language of the law forecloses any interpretation authorizing those subsidies.

Judge Ronald White writes,
This is a case of statutory interpretation. "The text is what it is, no matter which side benefits." Such a case (even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal) does not "gut" or "destroy" anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act as written. Congress is free to amend the ACA to provide for tax credits in both state and federal exchanges, if that is the legislative will. As the Act presently stands, "vague notions of a statute’s ‘basic purpose’ are nonetheless inadequate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issue under consideration" ...

The court holds that the IRS Rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C), or otherwise is an invalid implementation of the ACA, and is hereby vacated.

Excellent news! It's nice to see that the Judiciary has not been completely compromised by Progs who want to rewrite The Constitution.

But the issue has nothing to do with the legality of penalties or the universal mandate. It only involves to whom the feds may help buy insurance for their families.

 

[boedicca]

So Obama violated the laws yet again....

And now millions are losing subsidies they thought they were getting.. Because Obama Lied and broke the laws.

Another court strikes down Obamacare subsidies in 36 states - Vox

The Eastern District ruled on Pruitt v. Burwell, a suit brought by Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma. Curiously, this suit was filed prior to Oklahoma's decision to default to a federally-run exchange — suggesting that at least some state officials understood that subsidies could be yanked away from their citizens at some point in the future, if the attorney general's lawsuit prevailed.
Consistent with the DC Circuit's July ruling on Halbig v. Burwell, the Eastern District struck down subsidies on federally-run exchanges, asserting that the clear language of the law forecloses any interpretation authorizing those subsidies.

Judge Ronald White writes,
This is a case of statutory interpretation. "The text is what it is, no matter which side benefits." Such a case (even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal) does not "gut" or "destroy" anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act as written. Congress is free to amend the ACA to provide for tax credits in both state and federal exchanges, if that is the legislative will. As the Act presently stands, "vague notions of a statute’s ‘basic purpose’ are nonetheless inadequate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issue under consideration" ...

The court holds that the IRS Rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C), or otherwise is an invalid implementation of the ACA, and is hereby vacated.

Excellent news! It's nice to see that the Judiciary has not been completely compromised by Progs who want to rewrite The Constitution.

But the issue has nothing to do with the legality of penalties or the universal mandate. It only involves to whom the feds may help buy insurance for their families.

The Financial House of Cards collapses without the subsidies, bub.