There was no “creative” editing; I didn’t quote those parts because I don’t give a fuck about what you had to say there.
But you made a prediction/assertion, and I’m willing to bet that you’re wrong about it. I’ll bet as much as you want that you’re wrong.
Will you take my bet?
Since I’m not sure it has been posted in one place, it is worth posting the critical language in full. This is the language that Bricker and the D.C. Circuit believe unequivocally forecloses federal subsidies, with the key language bolded:
42 U.S.C. § 18031(b)(1): Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an “Exchange”) for the State.
42 U.S.C. § 18031(d)(1): An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.
42 U.S.C. § 18041©(1): If a State [does not go through the process to make an exchange] . . . the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
42 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(d)(21): The term “Exchange” means an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 18031 of this title.
26 U.S.C. § 36B(b)(2)(A): The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were **enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [18031 of this title] **. . .
So, it all depends on what they mean by “by.”
… because the only way to make something affordable is to have the government give you handouts.
And I think that however you try to define the distinction between interpreting versus creating laws, there’s always going to be something that is right on the boundary line… and there will be judges who issue rulings that some reasonable people view as properly interpreting the law and others view as legislating from the bench.
And, back to the topic at hand, the ACA is such a huge bill, and this is a complicated enough issue, that I don’t think it’s easy for anyone to confidently state that they can really know which of those any supreme court decision would be without reading a LOT of very dense legalese.
Terr’s approach to argument is to use the word “handout” the same way most Republicans use the word “socialism”. He can’t actually define it, or explain it, or deny the many examples of it that have been deeply rooted for decades in myriad aspects of American life, but by gum he’s aggin’ it!!
People vary greatly in their ability to learn, understand and use words properly. I’ve no doubt that Terr is doing the best he can with the vocabulary he has. We just have to extrapolate what he’s actually referring to from what he says. Pretty easy once you get the hang of it.
I thought the current word was “Benghazi”!
If you had a working Congress, I’d suggest the obvious solution - a series of amendments to clarify the legislation, such as has been done for legislation for centuries.
But you don’t, so… sorry.
That type of logic could be applied to anything. There are always things at the boundary of any distinction. But you can’t just ignore all distinctions just because there are still going to be some borderline cases.
Just spitballing here, but what if SCOTUS was encouraged to draft suggested legislation, i.e. “We find the statute as written unconstitutional but if it was written like this, it’d probably be okay.”
What I had to say there was part of my prediction.
I don’t think you understand the prediction I made. Your bet seems to be crafted by slicing my text in half and then declaring that you don’t give a fuck about that part of the text…but that text is part of what I said, and by cutting it off, you change the meaning of what I said.
I predict(ed) that the DC Circuit Court Panel would strike down the IRS subsidy rule for federal exchanges. (I add the -ed to show that this event is now in the past, and has come true).
I predict the Supreme Court will also strike down the IRS subsidy rule.
Do you understand the predictions now?
This case isn’t a constitutional issue.
However, on constitutional issues, I think they have.
In this case, pretty much anyone can see the fix here.
26 U.S.C. § 36B(b)(2)(A): The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange [del]established by the State under [18031 of this title] [/del]. . .
Similar fixes anywhere Congress no longer wants to limit the reach to state exchanges. If Congress now intends federal exchanges to be identical to state exchanges, they only have to remove the “…established by the State under section 18031 of this title…” words where they appear.
Right of course. We agree.
My point is not that you’re drawing the line in some objectively incorrect place, or that people can never come to decisions about individual cases. It’s that it’s not reasonable for you to represent it as “well, I like it to be the case that judges just do exactly what the law says, not legislate from the bench”, as if there’s some hard and fast distinction between the two, and there are good judges clearly on one side of the line, and bad judges on the other side of the line, etc. There’s a big gray area, no reasonable person would be at 0.0 or 1.0 on the scale, and people can disagree about one particular issue without that meaning that one of those people has no respect for the actual letter of the law, etc.
So… what’s stopping them? Is it anything more than they don’t like the ACA and are okay with it remaining broken?
You’re thinking of the Haliburton Deference. That’s the SCOTUS ruling that lets certain corporations do… whatever the hell they want!
This makes no sense on so many levels.
First of all, it’s doubtful that he’ll be thirty-five years old by 01/20/2016 (typical lifespan in captivity being about 17 years anyway). This makes him ineligible to assume the office.
Second, even if he WERE to be elected, why would a Democratic platypus want to undermine PPACA?
Also, unless you’re on a first-name basis with him, it’s really more respectful to refer to him as President The Platypus.
Of course. But the same point applies.
The fact that there can be people who agree about general principles but disagree about some ambiguous borderline cases does not imply that in all cases of disagreement this is so. There are also people who like or approve of legislating from the bench, whether overtly or by conjuring up some supposed ambiguity as a fig leaf.
I think this is pretty much accepted in legal circles. You’ll frequently see legal experts handicapping a particular case by noting the extent to which a given judge is a straight by-the-book judge or inclined to let his imagination run free. In this thread you’ve seen several posters express contempt for the notion that a just outcome is less important than what the law actually says, and though few judges probably go as far as that, it’s likely that many are influenced by this type of thinking to one degree or another.
Holy fuck do you not understand the simple sentence you wrote? I quoted it and bolded it (helpfully, I might add) and yet you still don’t know what prediction of yours I want to wager on???
Dude, did you have an aneurysm or something recently?
I know what you were predicting with regards to the court case(s) at hand, and I don’t really give a shit what you think about it (them). I want to wager on your prediction on what will happen on these boards after the SCOTUS decision and IF you are correct about what they will be: that everyone on the SDMB (except you, of course) will say that the decision was “because they are five racists who want Obama to fail, and all evil inhuman monsters who enjoy seeing poor people suffer.”
And I like betting on possible big payout type things, so I figured if you were really sure of yourself and the words you posted, you should have no problem taking a bet at 1000:1 odds. I mean, you’re a friggin’ majorly pedantic lawyer who was in this thread giving someone shit about posting things he prolly didn’t actually mean, so I know that you mean what you say, right? Anyway, I disagree with your assessment of future happenings on this board if the decision goes the way you think it will, so I’ll put up $1000, you put up your million dollars, and we’ll see if you’re right after the SCOTUS decision comes down. What do you say?
Of course, if you’re wrong about the SCOTUS decision, our bet is null.
So should I have a lawyer draw up a contract and contact an escrow agent?