Precisely.
Well first you have to be certain of your ideology. That makes it easier to be certain of anything that seems to support it.
I see what you did there. Nicely done.
Just a poor old peckerwood from Waco, but I have my moments. Too bad they’re just moments…
From the opinion in the DC circuit:
What a sub-human, racist, Nazi. What with upholding their opinion of the rule of law while recognizing the harm that may arise. Damn Nazis.
Be good, be kind, and support the rule of law. If you cannot do both, choose, and choose wisely.
Well, yes, my spelling was wrong but the link established the intent I had. But it is clear that you will never understand that. 
Not under the commerce clause. The firearm mandate was under a different Congressional power which is not applicable to ACA.
Had the argument been “it’s not a tax, but Congress did this back in the 1700s so it’s OK now”, it’s likely Roberts would have flipped and ruled against. That would then have answered the question as to whether Congress can mandate the purchase of a product.
Those other things were never challenged in court. Was judicial review even established at that point?
But that’s not at all what I’m saying. One can imagine a situation in which congress passed a law where it was extremely clear from multiple sections in the law that the intent of the law, the image that all the lawmakers had while passing it, that both pro and con sides agreed on; was that there would be state and federal exchanges, with state exchanges being preferred, and thus subsidized. And one can then imagine the executive branch overreaching and deciding to subsidize the federal exchanges also. And one can further imagine a court challenge to that. And one can further further imagine a judge issuing a ruling that used vaguely found penumbras and equal protections and due processes and a variety of things to come up with a reason why the federal exchanges should be subsidized; and any reasonable observer would have to conclude that the judge just plain felt that subsidizing all the exchanges was better social policy for the country, or maybe he was politically pressured by the executive branch, or something.
But that is distinctly NOT what happened here. In this case, it’s not purely a case of “do we follow the law, or do we just kind of do a similar thing that we think is better” it’s “how do we interpret a VERY complicated law which has one particular statement which seems to contradict the larger thrust of the law”. Now, I’m not saying that I can PROVE that one interpretation is the correct one, given legal precedent. I’m not a lawyer. I’m saying that this debate can occur entirely without reference to social good, and reasonable arguments can be made on both sides.
(It’s possible, by the way, that there is a well established and firm legal precedent for how to deal with laws in which one clause seems to accidentally violate the overall thrust of the law, and if so I’d be interested to hear about it, and if it was a very clear and strong precedent saying that the clause should be interpreted as written, well, that might influence my position. But I suspect this is a unique enough situation that people on each side will be able to come up with precedents that they claim support their position.)
Certainty of what? You are 100% absolutely dead inarguably certain that the supreme court will decide in your favor? If so, I offer YOU a bet, with 1000 to 1 odds. And hey, that’s a GREAT deal for you, because if you’re truly ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN CERTAIN CERTAIN then you should take the bet at 1,000,000 to 1 odds, because, hey, free money.
Offering bets might cast doubt on their certainty about their claims, it’s hard to see how it sheds any light on those claims’ actual truth.
Well… six particular statements:
42 USC § 18031(b)(1)
26 USC § 18036B(b)(2)
42 USC § 18021(a)(1)
42 USC § 18031(c)(1)
26 USC § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i)
Each and every one of those references contains an explicit reference to “[an] Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA].”
Not really, no. If you take social good out of the equation, you’re left with an unambiguous law. Where, even once, is the authorization for federal exchanges to get subsidies?
The social good argument is that the intent of the law would be frustrated if the text is followed – but that’s only because so many states failed to establish exchanges. If you had asked the people voting for this law about the issue, they would have said, “That’s the plan: we incentivize the state exchanges with the subsidies to encourage states to start their own exchanges.” The federal exchange was at first a last-ditch stopgap.
AFTER the law was passed, and it became apparent that so many states were going to refuse to set up exchanges, THEN the “intent” of the federal exchanges manifested as needing subsidies.
Without the social good, this is not a close question.
It doesn’t! The “overall thrust of the law” was that the delivery model would be state exchanges. In fact, the law unambiguously commands states to set up exchanges:
Congress planned that every state would have an exchange, and incentivized state exchanges with subsidies. Planned, hell – they ordered it.
Well, there’s the Plain Meaning Rule. But of course, the opposition argues that the they are following this rule because, according to them, the plain text result is “absurd.”
But it isn’t. There’s no reason that federally-delivered exchange purchases have to be subsidized. Congress imagined that state exchanges would predominate. Their miscalculation does not transform the result into absurdity.
I was certain of the DC panel ruling.
I’ll give you the 1000:1, any size bet you name.
I’m also reasonably certain of the Supreme Court result, although not 1000:1 certain.
But I won’t give odds. One big goal in betting is winning.
No, but it sheds light on whether the speaker is bloviating and regurgitating liberal echo chamber bullshit.
I don’t understand why you think this cuts in favor of your position. Is anyone actually arguing that this was a scrivener’s error in the literal sense? I don’t think so. I think the drafting error argument is that they forgot when they added federal exchanges that they needed to go back and alter all the references to exchanges from the prior bill that did not contemplate federal exchanges. No one, to my knowledge, is arguing that some staffer accidentally typed “Established by the State.”
Indeed, the multiple uses of the identical phrase seems to me to be a strong argument that the language you identify isn’t doing the work you think it is in the subsidy cap section, since they included identical language in many parts of the bill.
Is there any evidence at all for this claim?
This betrays a serious misunderstanding of how PPACA was designed to work. Even the plaintiffs concede that this interpretation of PPACA will destroy it.
Not really. The states who were interested in participating would just have to establish their own exchanges, or a simple legislative fix could be made.
Does not betting because you think those who compulsively wager are degenerates mean that a person is also, necessarily, regurgitating liberal echo chamber bullshit?
If you don’t have federal subsidies, then you have 36 states with a mandate to get insurance but no way for many people to afford that insurance. As a consequence, they won’t get it. The adverse selection effects will drive up premiums, and very likely destabilize the insurance markets in those states, since the whole scheme of Obamacare is to offset the cost to insurers of the insurance market reforms by giving them lots of new customers.
There’s a good chance, as Amici for the parties pursuing this lawsuit put it, that “the structure of the ACA will crumble.”
Which, of course, is the whole point here.
Again, no. The states would just have to establish exchanges, and much like the territories, the President can exempt all states from ACA rules until they have exchanges of their own.
Sure, they could do that. Or Congress could amend the law. And magical pixies might spread their pixie dust on all the people who won’t be able to afford health insurance, freeing them from all medical ailments.
In all likelihood, many of those 36 state governments would be happy to screw their poor uninsured folks in order to stick it to Obama. Exhibit A: The Medicare Expansion.
CAN the states establish exchanges at this point, though? IIRC, there was a deadline on that, which was reached this past January.
Edited:
Looks like there was a statutory deadline to certify exchanges, but the Administration previously extended the deadline by regulation. Not sure of the legality.
Why, its all so cut and dried, so simple an eleven year old on his way to his first Boy Scout Law Camp would grasp it in an instant! Which leaves two possibilities:
The first is that the judges who rule in support of the administration are legal morons, without the slightest clue what they are about, nor the least idea of the absolute authority embedded in the words “plain text”. Wherever the got their law degrees remains a mystery. Cracker Jacks box, most likely.
Or, the judges who support the administration’s position are utterly craven liberal stooges, who, though entirely aware of the stark simplicity of the situation, nonetheless blatantly and overtly subvert the rule of law.
Do they have your phone number, Bricker? Neglected to consult with you? Or couldn’t get through, what with all those appeals court justices clamoring for your definitive analysis? Wherever do you find the time to lecture us, with so much on your plate?
They must have your number, we certainly do.
Well:
And the line I was replying to:
Note that both of those arguments emphasize the supposed singular nature of the requirement.
I rebut that by pointing out it shows up in multiple spots, and along you come to argue that THAT shows it was inadvertent:
How about: the language is doing the exact work it says it’s doing. Congress speaks via the words it passes, not the aspirations, hopes, and dreams of some members at some point.
Sure, now – because now it’s obvious that the states are going to resist the command to set up exchanges. But when Congress passed the thing and the CBO scored it, the assumption was that the states would all have exchanges. The failure to provide federal subsidies was not considered fatal.