DC Circuit Court strikes down ACA subsidies

[Uncensored2008]

In a major blow to Obamacare, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the legality of providing federal subsidies to people who purchase health insurance through Federal Exchanges. This is the latest in a long string of legal defeats for the Nationalized health care system.

The decision could be reversed by the Supreme Court, but such action is viewed as unlikely. If this decision stands, Obamacare is unlikely to survive.

Court deals blow to Obama health law by limiting subsidies | Reuters

 

[Slyhunter]

This is major news why is it being ignored?

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is major news why is it being ignored?

It makes the Obamunists cry.

 

[Slyhunter]

dup thread

 

[daws101]

U.S. court rulings create new uncertainty over Obamacare


By David Morgan and Aruna Viswanatha

WASHINGTON Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:16pm EDT


(Reuters) - Two U.S. judicial panels on Tuesday injected new uncertainty into the future of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with conflicting rulings over whether the federal government can subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans.

The appeals court rulings, handed down by three-judge panels in Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, augured a possible rematch before the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2012 narrowly upheld the Democratic president's 2010 healthcare overhaul.

The twin rulings fell in line with partisan disagreements over healthcare reform, with two judges appointed by Republican presidents deciding against the administration in the District of Columbia and three judges appointed by Democrats ruling in favor in Virginia.
U.S. court rulings create new uncertainty over Obamacare | Reuters

 

[Uncensored2008]

U.S. court rulings create new uncertainty over Obamacare


By David Morgan and Aruna Viswanatha

WASHINGTON Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:16pm EDT


(Reuters) - Two U.S. judicial panels on Tuesday injected new uncertainty into the future of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with conflicting rulings over whether the federal government can subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans.

The appeals court rulings, handed down by three-judge panels in Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, augured a possible rematch before the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2012 narrowly upheld the Democratic president's 2010 healthcare overhaul.

The twin rulings fell in line with partisan disagreements over healthcare reform, with two judges appointed by Republican presidents deciding against the administration in the District of Columbia and three judges appointed by Democrats ruling in favor in Virginia.
U.S. court rulings create new uncertainty over Obamacare | Reuters

Spin all you like Comrade.

Without subsidies, Fascist Care falls apart. You know it, KOS knows it.

 

[Moonglow]

I am sure it will end up at the Federal Supreme Court...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am sure it will end up at the Federal Supreme Court...

There are still 5 constitutionalists on the court. Things don't look good for Fascist Care.

 

[daws101]

I am sure it will end up at the Federal Supreme Court...

There are still 5 constitutionalists on the court. Things don't look good for Fascist Care.

the Chevron Doctrine (also called Chevron deference) basically has come to mean a set of rules by which a judge can fairly review the decisions of a federal agency without acting improperly, in defiance of a legitimate agency or Act of Congress. In general, it basically says that a judge should not interfere if the agency took their actions based on an announcement of its proposed action, took time to receive comments from interested parties, and fully considered all those public comments. The doctrine says that even if the agency's decision doesn't really make sense, a judge should still give deference and not interfere. There are certain situations that have arisen that designate when a judge should step in and rule an agency's action was wrong and should be corrected. Those situations have arisen in several other cases that came after this landmark Chevron case.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In a major blow to Obamacare, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the legality of providing federal subsidies to people who purchase health insurance through Federal Exchanges. This is the latest in a long string of legal defeats for the Nationalized health care system.

The decision could be reversed by the Supreme Court, but such action is viewed as unlikely. If this decision stands, Obamacare is unlikely to survive.

Court deals blow to Obama health law by limiting subsidies | Reuters

It doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court to be overturned. It will be overturned by the full DC Circuit. The ruling has already been suspended pending appeal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court to be overturned. It will be overturned by the full DC Circuit. The ruling has already been suspended pending appeal.

Oh, it "will be," huh?

ROFL

Two possibilities - the full court will overturn it, and it will go to the SCOTUS, or the full court will not overturn it, and it will go to the SCOTUS.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court to be overturned. It will be overturned by the full DC Circuit. The ruling has already been suspended pending appeal.

Oh, it "will be," huh?

ROFL

Two possibilities - the full court will overturn it, and it will go to the SCOTUS, or the full court will not overturn it, and it will go to the SCOTUS.

Yes, it "will be". I will be utterly shocked if they don't toss the ruling out.

Further, I doubt very much that SCOTUS will chose to hear this case, either way.

 

[daws101]

It doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court to be overturned. It will be overturned by the full DC Circuit. The ruling has already been suspended pending appeal.

Oh, it "will be," huh?

ROFL

Two possibilities - the full court will overturn it, and it will go to the SCOTUS, or the full court will not overturn it, and it will go to the SCOTUS.

Yes, it "will be". I will be utterly shocked if they don't toss the ruling out.

Further, I doubt very much that SCOTUS will chose to hear this case, either way.

they won't

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, it "will be". I will be utterly shocked if they don't toss the ruling out.

They have no legal basis to overturn the ruling - you expect partisanship to trump law, as it usually does, but by creating the ruling, this forces the court to defend any partisan measures.

Further, I doubt very much that SCOTUS will chose to hear this case, either way.

You were shocked by Hobby Lobby ruling, weren't you?

 

[daws101]

Yes, it "will be". I will be utterly shocked if they don't toss the ruling out.

They have no legal basis to overturn the ruling - you expect partisanship to trump law, as it usually does, but by creating the ruling, this forces the court to defend any partisan measures.

Further, I doubt very much that SCOTUS will chose to hear this case, either way.

You were shocked by Hobby Lobby ruling, weren't you?

IT'S a tempest in a tea pot..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, it "will be". I will be utterly shocked if they don't toss the ruling out.

They have no legal basis to overturn the ruling - you expect partisanship to trump law, as it usually does, but by creating the ruling, this forces the court to defend any partisan measures.

Of course they have a legal basis to do so.

Chevron Deference | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

Further, I doubt very much that SCOTUS will chose to hear this case, either way.

You were shocked by Hobby Lobby ruling, weren't you?

Nope.

 

[Uncensored2008]

IT'S a tempest in a tea pot..

As I recall duhs, you lectured all of us on how stupid we were to think the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the 1st Amendment in the HL case...

{ The law establishes a formula for determining the tax credits. It applies to insurance that is purchased through an exchange “established by the State.” It does not mention the federal exchange. The challengers argue that this language is clear: the tax credits are available only for purchases through the state exchanges.

Courts are required to apply the laws that Congress enacts and to strike down rules that violate clear statutes. On the other hand, Congress passes a lot of laws that aren’t clear. In those cases, courts are required to uphold rules that reasonably resolve ambiguities in the statutes.

One court of appeals (the D.C. Circuit) ruled in a split decision that the ACA clearly prohibits the subsidy for purchases from the federal exchange. Another court of appeals (the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Virginia) held unanimously that, because the law is unclear, the subsidies can be provided to everyone. Two other challenges to the rule are still waiting for decisions from the lower courts.

It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court is going to take up the issue. The Obama administration has said that it will ask all the judges of the D.C. Circuit to rehear that case. And there is a good chance it will win there. The court is now tilted heavily in favor of Democratic appointees who are less likely to think that the rule exceeds the federal government’s authority.}

Commentary: The fate of the Obamacare subsidies in the Supreme Court : SCOTUSblog

 

[daws101]

IT'S a tempest in a tea pot..

As I recall duhs, you lectured all of us on how stupid we were to think the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the 1st Amendment in the HL case...

{ The law establishes a formula for determining the tax credits. It applies to insurance that is purchased through an exchange “established by the State.” It does not mention the federal exchange. The challengers argue that this language is clear: the tax credits are available only for purchases through the state exchanges.

Courts are required to apply the laws that Congress enacts and to strike down rules that violate clear statutes. On the other hand, Congress passes a lot of laws that aren’t clear. In those cases, courts are required to uphold rules that reasonably resolve ambiguities in the statutes.

One court of appeals (the D.C. Circuit) ruled in a split decision that the ACA clearly prohibits the subsidy for purchases from the federal exchange. Another court of appeals (the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Virginia) held unanimously that, because the law is unclear, the subsidies can be provided to everyone. Two other challenges to the rule are still waiting for decisions from the lower courts.

It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court is going to take up the issue. The Obama administration has said that it will ask all the judges of the D.C. Circuit to rehear that case. And there is a good chance it will win there. The court is now tilted heavily in favor of Democratic appointees who are less likely to think that the rule exceeds the federal government’s authority.}

Commentary: The fate of the Obamacare subsidies in the Supreme Court : SCOTUSblog

as always you over dramatize , I stated an opinion, besides that ruling will be overturned too..

 

[daws101]

Yes, it "will be". I will be utterly shocked if they don't toss the ruling out.

They have no legal basis to overturn the ruling - you expect partisanship to trump law, as it usually does, but by creating the ruling, this forces the court to defend any partisan measures.

Of course they have a legal basis to do so.

Chevron Deference | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

Further, I doubt very much that SCOTUS will chose to hear this case, either way.

You were shocked by Hobby Lobby ruling, weren't you?

Nope.

I already posted the Chevron Deference and unhinged 2008 dodge it too,,,