BREAKING**Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

[Vigilante]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe Chief Roberts is hoping for another bite of the Obamacare apple? He's proved that he is not a racist by bending over backwards to categorize the "penalty" as a tax. Now he is free to do the right thing and shoot this broken footed horse in the head.....

What a mess......Thanks Democrats, you fucked up the entire system!

Justice Roberts is a sell out and a disgrace. Unfortunately, he is the closest thing to a conservative in the federal government.

I think you are right, I think Roberts will be left alone this time and the torch will be passed to another sell out in SCOTUS.

Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare?
Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as repo..., and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.


In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident.

In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process... however there is more to the story.
Drudge did an article in 2005
http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-inves...
The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”

Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”

Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?

This is not clear ... -- the Associated Press reports that they were "adopted from Latin America." This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. 1

TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts's (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were “born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.”

Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare? - No Compromise Foundation

 

[Siete]

saw a guy tonight say regardless how it goes it'll be at least 18 months before a decision is made .... shouldn't be too much of a stretch since the right has been carping about ACA for several years now ...

 

[Politico]

And as you may note, SOME States didn't set up Exchanges because if I'm not mistaken, that's a provision in the Law itself. States don't HAVE to set up Exchanges. It's Optional.

Interesting.

Not exactly. The law, as originally written, required the states to either forego ALL federal Medicaid dollars OR establish exchanges and expand Medicaid. John (not Jay) Roberts rewrote the law to allow states to keep the original Medicaid dollars and not expand. His justification for that ruling was that congress had made some "implied" deal with the states. It's good to have judicial restraint. Hail Bushii.

Then in that case, Roberts essentially planted the seeds of Obamacare's destruction. Brilliant. Wolf in sheep's clothing.

And if Obammy hadn't been swinging his executive pen so much this wouldn't be happening.

 

[paperview]

kosh makes fantasy statements as usual

I think he's just a bot, programmed to work around the words "far left."

I don't think I've ever read a Kosh post that does not include that phrase at least once.

\

 

[JoeB131]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe Chief Roberts is hoping for another bite of the Obamacare apple? He's proved that he is not a racist by bending over backwards to categorize the "penalty" as a tax. Now he is free to do the right thing and shoot this broken footed horse in the head.....

What a mess......Thanks Democrats, you fucked up the entire system!

The system was already fucked up.

Actually, what this does is creates a demand on the states to get off their asses and create the exchanges.

But more than likely, the full DC Circuit will overturn this ruling.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am not the one that is trying to argue that the government signed a contract with every single insurance company in the US, am I?

You're the one who thinks the Courts can't apply the principle of legislative intent to the meaning of a law.

That makes you a genuine idiot, not an impersonator. My bad.

I am the one that knows that legislative intent doesn't trump what the law actually says. Even the liberals on the court understand that, which is why the EPA lost when they tried to do it.

You're denying that there is such a thing as legislative intent taken into consideration.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am not the one that is trying to argue that the government signed a contract with every single insurance company in the US, am I?

You're the one who thinks the Courts can't apply the principle of legislative intent to the meaning of a law.

That makes you a genuine idiot, not an impersonator. My bad.

The problem with that argument is that the legislature indented that provision of the bill to be interpreted exactly as the court interpreted it.

The courts have not agreed on the interpretation. Pay attention.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

But if only 14 states chose to set up an exchange of their own, the money they received should not have been given to the 36 of whom chose to participate in the Federal one! That's not how the law was designed!

 

[Vigilante]

 

[bripat9643]

You're the one who thinks the Courts can't apply the principle of legislative intent to the meaning of a law.

That makes you a genuine idiot, not an impersonator. My bad.

The problem with that argument is that the legislature indented that provision of the bill to be interpreted exactly as the court interpreted it.

The courts have not agreed on the interpretation. Pay attention.

I said "court" (singular), the one that ruled the subsidies were illegal.

Pay attention.

 

[bripat9643]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

Says who?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

From here it goes to a full bench ruling.

---Make up of the Court? --------> 8 Democrats / 5 Republicans.

Very unlikely the court will uphold the decision of these 2 Teaper judges on the 3 judge panel.

Take note as well: Two other appeals courts have thrown out similar cases.

^ tacit admission that what are supposed to be legal and objective rulings are actually political. Fucking liberal Democrat jurists cannot be trusted to compartmentalize their political "feelings" from their duty as judges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat has trouble if two courts disagree then the issue will probably end up at SCOTUS, which has made it quite clear ACA is legal.

The 2-1 vote in the DC court will be overturned most like by the full court, which is 9 to 5 in favor of the dems.

 

[Steven_R]

hard to imagine so many people want so many people to go without health insurance just because they don't like the POTUS ... the SC has already ruled for Healthcare, I can't see them taking it away from 4 million people.

Hard to imagine so many people expecting other people to pick up the tab for their own healthcare. Why should I have to pay for my own HC and 4 million others as well??

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

Really?

Perhaps you will cite the provision of the ObumblerCare Law that crafted a Federal Exchange to be funded? But I doubt it.

We DO know that the "law" -- such as it is -- did not go through normal channels. To cram this crap through, they pretended that it was a reconciliation type budget bill. OF course, that was horse shit. But since that's how it got passed, there was no Congressional conference committee to clean up the drafting process.

So, now, it is what it is. They DID say that the State exchanges could fund the nonsense, but they knew that some states might choose NOT to create such "exchanges" and so they set up a Federal exchange. So far so stupid. But the morons that cobbled the crap together NEVER provided ANYTHING in the law that finally got crammed through which provided for subsidization of the FEDERAL EXCHANGES.

It is possible that they "intended" to do so. Maybe they intended for magic unicorn farts to sprinkle the federal exchanges with tons of gold dust. I suppose that too is "possible." But they didn't SAY as much any more than they said diddly dick about providing subsidization for the Federal Exchanges.

Which controls? (a) What you believe they intended or (b) what they SAID?

Hm. Tough one.

 

[Steven_R]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

Really?

Perhaps you will cite the provision of the ObumblerCare Law that crafted a Federal Exchange to be funded? But I doubt it.

We DO know that the "law" -- such as it is -- did not go through normal channels. To cram this crap through, they pretended that it was a reconciliation type budget bill. OF course, that was horse shit. But since that's how it got passed, there was no Congressional conference committee to clean up the drafting process.

So, now, it is what it is. They DID say that the State exchanges could fund the nonsense, but they knew that some states might choose NOT to create such "exchanges" and so they set up a Federal exchange. So far so stupid. But the morons that cobbled the crap together NEVER provided ANYTHING in the law that finally got crammed through which provided for subsidization of the FEDERAL EXCHANGES.

It is possible that they "intended" to do so. Maybe they intended for magic unicorn farts to sprinkle the federal exchanges with tons of gold dust. I suppose that too is "possible." But they didn't SAY as much any more than they said diddly dick about providing subsidization for the Federal Exchanges.

Which controls? (a) What you believe they intended or (b) what they SAID?

Hm. Tough one.

It was never intended to work in the first place. It was intended to eventually break the medical industry machine to the point that the unwashed masses would demand the government do something, and our saviors on Capitol Hill would do so by sweeping away private medicine and bringing about government-run healthcare.

The surprising thing to the Dems isn't that Obamacare is broken, it's that it broke quicker than anyone expected.

 

[kiwiman127]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe Chief Roberts is hoping for another bite of the Obamacare apple? He's proved that he is not a racist by bending over backwards to categorize the "penalty" as a tax. Now he is free to do the right thing and shoot this broken footed horse in the head.....

What a mess......Thanks Democrats, you fucked up the entire system!

The system was already fucked up.

Actually, what this does is creates a demand on the states to get off their asses and create the exchanges.

But more than likely, the full DC Circuit will overturn this ruling.

Minnesota has their own exchange, Wisconsin doesn't. An insurance policy in Minny is about 1/2 of the same policy in Wisconsin.
Column: Minnesota beats Wisconsin in affordable health care : Columns

 

[bripat9643]

bripat has trouble if two courts disagree then the issue will probably end up at SCOTUS, which has made it quite clear ACA is legal.

You're a 200 proof idiot, Fakey. The court did not rule that ACA was legal. It ruled only that the provision allowing the IRS to fine us for not buying insurance was legal. It ventured no opinion on any other part of the bill.

The 2-1 vote in the DC court will be overturned most like by the full court, which is 9 to 5 in favor of the dems.

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. It will be difficult for even the liberal hacks on the court to rule against the explicit language in the bill.

 

[boedicca]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

Illogical. The ACA includes language regarding both State and Federal exchanges. The language is very clear that subsidies are for State Exchanges Only. This was a negotiated carrot to try to get States to set up their exchanges. This same tactic was used for Medicaid for 50 years...recipients only get aid if their states cooperate with the program. Using citizens as bait to get States to enact Federal programs is not a novel nor an unusual approach.