....because the current administration recognized this court as critical in future legal challenges to Obamacare, they wanted to – and hypocritically did – shift the balance of the court in a decidedly Progressive way – which is to say in a way which recognizes almost no limits on government power nor on the appropriate behavior of judges in expanding that power.
On Thursday, those malign efforts paid off for Obama and Reid as the DC Circuit agreed to an en banc review (all of the judges rehearing the case after it is initially decided by a three-judge panel) of the July 22nd ruling in Halbig v Burwell
that the IRS may not issue subsidies to those who purchase health
insurance plans through the federal insurance exchange known as
Healthcare.gov – because the plain text of the law specifies that
subsidies are available on exchanges “established by the State.” In
fact, this language is in the law twice....
Plain text be damned, full speed ahead, eh?
...The judges should consider the ramifications of what they do next. An overturning of the original panel’s ruling will properly be considered a purely political move leading to a further erosion of the public’s trust in our highest courts....
This is important because if the en banc reverses, SCOTUS will not likely take up the case unless Roberts suddenly obtains a conscience over his ridiculous ruling in NFIB.
So. The citizen will be forced to ask "what 'law'?"--just as the citizen will be asking about queer "marriage" when plebiscites are over-ruled in black-letter violation of the 10th Amendment.
Plain text be damned, full speed ahead, eh?
...The judges should consider the ramifications of what they do next. An overturning of the original panel’s ruling will properly be considered a purely political move leading to a further erosion of the public’s trust in our highest courts....
This is important because if the en banc reverses, SCOTUS will not likely take up the case unless Roberts suddenly obtains a conscience over his ridiculous ruling in NFIB.
So. The citizen will be forced to ask "what 'law'?"--just as the citizen will be asking about queer "marriage" when plebiscites are over-ruled in black-letter violation of the 10th Amendment.
2 comments:
The law does not say that subsidies are ONLY available on state exchanges. Therefore, the law is ambiguous.
Furthermore, Section 1321 says that if a state does not set up its own exchange, "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity_ establish such Exchange within the State". [emphasis added]
"Such" would be the exchange set up within and for the state by the federal government. Although that exchange can be accessed through Healthcare.gov, each exchange is unique to that state and is not actually a federal exchange.
"Plain text" indeed.
"Such" would definitely NOT be a State exchange, because "such" was established by the Feds.
The only ambiguity here is the one you'd like to create by utilization of the Clinton "meaning of 'is'" arabesque.
No surprise.
Post a Comment