But again, it’s going to depend on how the justices interpret the law. I can see a reasonable interpretation being: The federal government is filling the void left by the state. That is, serving the same purpose as the state.
Now, I’m not saying that is the only way this can be interpreted, but I don’t see it as out of the realm of possibilities. Do you?
Well, technically it was HIS offer, and I was willing from the get-go to negotiate terms, but thanks for weighing in.
It wasn’t an offer, it was a common colloquial use of the term “I’ll bet that …” on facts that are not verifiable.
You pretended it was an actual bet because everyone - you, Bricker, everyone - knows there are not a significant number of indictments for voter fraud, so you knew you could score a cheap point by pretending to respond to a bet offer about it.
As I said, you pointed out the facts of the situation.
No, it isn’t. It’s what the action is. “How the facts give rise to a cause of action” would surely require pointing out the legal specifics as to what’s required for the action to be successful/reasonable (or the opposite, if you were arguing the other side). You point out the facts; you point out the action; you don’t say how one gets to the other.
True. But not how.
So, as I said; it’s “This is what happened, so the cop was wrong.” not “This is what happened, here’s how those facts should be interpreted legally/in court, so the cop was wrong.”
I’m glad you agree “voter fraud” is an unverifiable issue.
I agree that the scale of it is, anyway.
But that’s neither here nor there, for purposes of this thread.
A lot of legal experts want the courts to save the ACA by giving the law a construction of “This is what they should have passed, and meant to pass, but unfortunately did not pass.”
I am confident that the DC Circuit won’t do that. How do I know? Because during oral argument, Judge Randolph said, in response to Delery’s argument about ignoring the text of the law in favor of its overall purpose, “If the legislation is just stupid, I don’t see that it’s up to the court to save it.”
Admittedly, Judge Edwards seemed inclined to buy the argument that the court should get out its drafting pen and save the statute. But the third panel member, Judge Griffith, said that the government had a heavy burden to show that the statutory language doesn’t mean what it says it means.
Audio of the oral argument is here; look for 25 March 2014 if interested.
So: the panel is 2-1 in favor of reading the words of the law.
If the government loses, they may well request an en banc review. Not sure what will happen there. But if that happens and the plaintiffs lose, SCOTUS will take it on cert.
And I am confident SCOTUS has at least five votes for reading the words of the law.
Yes, I return to my main point: Bricker is fully capable of whiny bitchery.
I’m no expert on these matters, but my understanding is that comments made during oral arguments are frequently poor predictors of final rulings, and are sometimes intended to sound out for counterarguments. (My recollection is that odds shifted to the USSC striking down the individual mandate based on comments made during oral arguments, and this did not come to pass.)
Another quibble: ISTM that judges are frequently reluctant to make seismic changes based on what might be perceived as “technicalities”, even where under strict legal theory they might be warranted, even where those same judges might be inclined to rule differently if there was less at stake. It’s widely thought that a ruling againt the IRS on this could undermine the entire ACA (whether this is correct is another matter). To my mind, this increases the possibility that the judges during oral arguments were speaking their judicial philosophies, but ultimately will not have the actual inclination to strike down such a major part of the ACA’s implementation on that basis.
Not that I’m betting the other way either :). I’m just quibbling with your certainty here.
You do realize that your workplace very likely stopped offering full time positions because of the ACA, right?
If that’s true, wouldn’t it be the case that the ACA isn’t actually helping you?
The federal government is not permitted to “fill the void” without statutory language permitting them to do so.
Your interpretation might have more force if the law didn’t so explicitly define the federal exchange setup as well. In the section creating the federal exchanges, there’s no mention of subsidies. So the law explicitly permits the federal government to set up exchanges, but does not authorize tax credits. The law explicitly permits states to set up exchanges and it permits tax credits. Congress wanted to incentivize the states to set up exchanges, so it used its power to grant tax credits to state exchange users.
In the larger scheme, though, of course a judge can say, “Forget the law as written and let’s look at the big picture.” Equally obviously, I regard that approach to judicial interpretation as inconsistent with our notions of a democratic republic and sovereignty vested in the people. Elected legislatures write the laws; the judges should act as umpires, judging the law as written, not the law as they want it to turn out.
But who cares? In this case, I see two certain votes for Halbig. And if the government goes en banc, I see a SCOTUS appeal and five certain votes.
And those certain votes are votes that correctly apply the role of the judiciary: reading the text of the law, and not saving the law by adding a line that Congress never wrote.
Sure – but that’s why betting is such a valuable tool. It clarifies whether the expressed certainty is real or a rhetorical flourish. You’re not expressing certainty – I wouldn’t offer to bet you. You haven’t said you’re right – just that you’re not certain I’m right. That’s fine.
But I am certain I am right.
Oddly, this is a situation in which I have already accepted a bet, for large odds, against me. GIGOBuster, and others in his camp, won’t suffer the slightest hit when his prediction is shown to be wrong. Virtually everyone here will regard his wrong prediction as still being made for the correct (i.e. liberal) reason, and he’ll suffer not one condemnation for his inaccuracy.
When I’m right, I’ll be accused of unseemly celebration and gloating.
And if by crazy chance I’m wrong, the gates of hell will open and everyone will dance on my skull.
A bet is the only way I can (even slightly) even up those consequences.
But that’s OK, even so. Conservatives are used to being right, and used to liberals ignoring it.
The Republicans have shown no evidence that they are fiscally responsible. Reducing costs and improving efficiency is not their apparent goal anywhere. Since President 666, their mantra has been “government is bad”, one can then easily infer that the Republican agenda is to fuck up everything the government does so that it can be sold off and privatized. Electing Republicans and their Tea children is exactly equivalent to putting the bull in charge of the china shop.
They have one. Dismantle the ACA (especially with an eye toward deregulating insurance) and go back to the way it was. Except, insurance companies should be allowed to sell garbage policies framed in one state in order to skirt the tighter requirements of another state where they want to sell them, so that the race to the bottom can really heat up.
He’ll have to pay more for health insurance, so you can take some consolation in that at least.
Per the OP, “I admire the tenacity of Republicans”,** Bricker** sure is epitomizing that. He comes in and completely turns a thread around, and tenaciously keeps it focused on betting rather than the intent of the OP. Three pages mostly about whether he bets honestly, or whether betting on an opinion legitimizes it. Quite the maneuver. Not one word on whether the strategy, not the legality, of the lawsuit itself is valid rather than it just screwing people over in the name of “winning”.
He’ll have to actually pay for health insurance. Vs. taking handouts from the government.
Large odds? Large odds for who?
See, I am not convinced that betting is a reliable indicator of certainty. $100 means less to a millionaire than it does to a man drowning in debt. One hundred dollars may be nothing to you. The ability to project certainty may be worth $100 dollars to you. Or $2. Or $10. Variable amounts to different people at different times.
And considering that gambling is entertaining to some, it may be worth $X just to gamble. I think it’s entirely possible for someone to be incentivized to engage in a bet to the point that their certainty is overwhelmed by the other factors, such that the cost of losing the bet has less cost than the value gained by simply engaging in the bet. Thus rendering the whole bet nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. At best.
Come on, now. No one likes losing a bet. Even a millionaire and even if it’s only $100.
“Hi there, cutie! I just bet that guy ten dollars that if I asked nicely, you wouldn’t smother me with hot monkey love…”
He pays for health insurance now. Its not a full subsidy. I’m on one of the subsidized plans myself, and pay about $250 a month. (I think the total cost of my plan without subsidies is arould $400.) While the government helps pay for it, its not a handout.