Maybe not. Of course, if you were, you probably wouldn’t know it. 
But aren’t you concerned that reality has a liberal bias?
When a federal court of appeals hears a case, they assign a panel of three judges to decide it. But, with different procedures in different courts and circumstances, the entire court can review the case if it disagrees with the panel. This “entire court” review is called en banc review. It is never required, just like the Supreme Court is not required to review any appellate matter. Here, the D.C. panel of three judges decided the case, but the entire court may think otherwise.*
Generally, when a court makes a decision that will immediately affect people and for which there are reasonable doubts about whether a higher level of review would reach the same outcome, the decision can be “stayed”–meaning it does not go into effect immediately. Given the magnitude of the impact of this decision and the fact that circuits are already split on the outcome, a stay is a virtual certainty.
The Supreme Court gets to select what cases it hears on appeal, agreeing to hear only some of them by granting certiorari. It is more likely to select a case when it represents a “circuit split”–meaning two courts of appeals have reached different conclusions on the same issue. Here, if the D.C. Circuit’s en banc review ends up aligning it with the Fourth Circuit, then there is no circuit split (yet). That would decrease the chance of Supreme Court review, though not eliminate it entirely. Conversely, if the full court does not overturn the panel, then Supreme Court review is virtually assured because the alternative is disparate enforcement of a hugely influential federal law.
-
- Notably, senior judges may be placed on panels, but do not participate in en banc review. Right now, senior judges are more likely to be conservative in most circuits. Hence, the pool of judges hearing the case en banc, especially in the D.C. Circuit, is more liberal. This is why we can be fairly confident that the panel decision will get overturned, because this case is not open-and-shut in either direction on the merits, meaning ideology is the best predictor.
Besides being an incompetent human you also are incompetent at reading previous posts.
That’s fair. But there are objective criteria for gambling addiction.
I answered “yes” to two of those questions. And one of them was “Did gambling affect your reputation?” Never in real life, but in an excess of generosity I included the liberal crowd’s horror here at being forced to confront their unrealistic cheerleading as an “affect” against my reputation.
You realize they’re all right here still, yes?
And now, I do know what the hell you are talking about!
Anybody else want a “Team Parker!” t-shirt?
Is one of the questions “have you taken a quiz to see if you’re a gambling addict”?
You realize that I was talking about the appeals and even the supreme court? Indeed we are still about you being an incompetent, not only at reading previous posts, but also at being human.
Here is some video of Bricker dealing with the board’s liberal hypocrisy: Fred Flintstone: Degenerate Gambler - YouTube
Thanks. Very helpful. I have a related question:
The DC Circuit 3-judge panel overturned the tax rebates, but the 4th Circuit court upheld them. Looking at Wiki, it seems like the 4th Circuit court completely contains the DC Circuit’s region. Is the DC Circuit only for DC? That is, if it’s not appealed, and the 4th Circuit is not appealed (both unlikely, I understand), would the tax rebates be disallowed only in DC? Does the DC Circuit even have a real geographical area?
Here’s the thing though; as far as the US ship of state is concerned, it IS far more important that the niceties of the law get hammered out correctly than health care is for millions of people.
The vast, vast majority of those people will be dead 100 years from now, health care or not, but this law or some grandson of it will more than likely still be in effect at that point.
So clamoring about people’s health insurance seems kind of short-sighted to me considering that the bill is more far reaching than that. In other words, the point of the bill isn’t “ZOMG! Let’s get people affordable health care NOW!”, but rather to set something up for a longer period.
And if the short termwas the point of the law, then we have some true fools proposing this stuff.
And indeed 3 judgements have been made in favor of the law, with that technical flaw in it.
The most likely outcome in the CD court is that this will be appealed there and the decision for the technicality will be overturned.
Meaning that if this is appealed to the supreme court the plaintiffs will have 4 judgements against them and no currently one in favor.
Very interesting question. I don’t know the answer for sure, but I’ll tell you what I do know.
It’s real geographic area is the District of Columbia. However, challenges may be lodged in the District of Columbia concerning a wide range of circumstances in other geographic areas when they concern federal agencies because a statute called the Administrative Procedure Act allows suit to be filed there.
Generally when there is a circuit split, one of two things is true: if it’s an injunctive issue (meaning some individual is told to engage in some conduct), then usually different individuals are differentially bound depending on which circuit they are in; if it’s a damages issue, the court simply award different damages in different cases.
But here, the same actual official is subject to two different rulings. I think what that means is that the IRS cannot give subsidies to the individuals who were the subject of the suit in the D.C. Circuit, but must give subsidies to the individuals who were the subject of the suit in the Fourth Circuit, if there were no stay in either case. I say “subject of the suit” because the actual plaintiffs were not people seeking subsidies, AFAIK. People who had standing who had not yet filed could then file suit in the District of Columbia and presumably win under the D.C. Circuit precedent.
I’m not certain of that though.
However it does seem that your “objective” criteria as to whether or not you are right is whether or not someone is willing to bet against you. The problem with this is that you assume that equal money means equal stakes. Given some of your other posts regarding your frequent trips to the Opera etc. It is clear that you are relatively well off. Probably much more so than most of the rest of the Doper community. $100 is presumably chosen as an amount you might notice or regret missing, but not something that will have any real effect on your finances. For many here at the dope that is not the case, and so refusing to accept your bet for them might be mere financial prudence. If Soros came in and said he would bet you $50,000 that you were wrong about this case, would you take him up on it? If not, would the fact that you were unwilling to do so mean that you really didn’t believe your convictions?
This on top of the fact that we recognize that the current supreme court is populated with the most conservative set of justices in the last 40 years or so, means that even if we were certain of the right of our arguments, we recognize that a 5-4 vote in favor of the more conservative viewpoint is a likely possibility.
You really need to realize that not every pit thread needs to come down to a discussion of legal technicalities. Sometimes they are about justice in the abstract. Imagine that this was a Ugandan message board and the several gay Ugandans posted how horrible and unjust it was that the could be arrested and condemned to death. Would it really help to come in a post that the law had been legitimately passed by the legislature and that in all likelihood that it would be upheld by the Ugandan Supreme court? Chastising him for daring to declaring that such a law was wrong, and further offering a the OP poster $100 bet that the police would in fact come to take him away to the gallows?
That is how you are coming off to those like Gigobuster in the thread who are seriously worried about losing their healthcare over a minor oversight in the wording of the law.
No. Where did you say that?
The Supreme Court looks at the law without any particular deference to the decisions of lower courts.
So what are you predicting the Supreme Court will do?
I agree. People within the Fourth Circuit have a cognizable right to subsidies; people within the DC Circuit do not.