Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree13Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 22nd, 2014, 09:27 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 4,931
The SCOTUS signaled it was ready to rein Obama in on the EPA ruling. The ACA will be disastrous for Democrats when the Obama Administration is forced to follow the letter of the law.

I'm looking forward to Obama getting the same smack down on immigration law.
Libertine is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 09:31 AM   #12
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
The Fourth Circuit upheld the un-rule of law, King v. Burwell. Their reasoning flies in the face of void for vagueness among other legal reasonings and precedents.

Quote:
For reasons explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying deference to the IRS’s determination, however, we uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.
When a court admits that the law is at best "ambiguous" and "subject to multiple interpretations", it has no business upholding that law, and deferring to an agency. IOW, the Fourth Circuit took the cowards way out. But if that ruling were to become the 'law of the land', a future IRS, under a future administration, can simply reverse the current agency discretion. As I say, a cowardly action by the Fourth Circuit.

However, the Halbig v. Burwell decision affects nearly two-thirds of the nation.



Last edited by excalibur; July 22nd, 2014 at 09:46 AM.
excalibur is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 09:42 AM   #13
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
The 4th Circuit upheld the un-rule of law. Their reasoning flies in the face of void for vagueness among other legal reasonings and precedents.



When a court admits the la is at best ambiguous, it has no business upholding that law, and deferring to an agency

However, the Halbig v. Burwell affects nearly two-thirds of the nation.


The DC court did not stay their decision, which means subsidies are illegal after the ruling. Now let's see if Obama continues with the subsidies barring an appeal for a stay.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 09:45 AM   #14
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,449
of course obama will, he has suspended the rule of law in the US of A
webguy4 is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 09:47 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I'm waiting for you to point out the errors in the rulings.

The 4th circuit actually upheld the law at the same time today. Did you know that jimmy? The 4th held that the decision should refer to the statute if there is any question. The DC circuit seems to have made the opposite decision by not adhereing to that standard long adhered to by the courts. Also SCOTUS is loath to hear cases in which the lower courts are in disagreement with, so the plaintiffs are in no danger of getting there any time soon. The appeals process could take 3 years or longer. By then we will have a Hillary Clinton White House, and may very well have a majority in both Houses of Congress, since the Republicans will have as many as 26 Senate seats up for grabs, as well as all 435 House seats. I'm going with the full appeals court that has 7 Democratic appointees on it in an En Banc filing that will uphold the law as written. All of the Constitutional people I've been listening to all morning are of the opinion that the intent of the law was to be extended to the Federal exchanges as well as the states. Which makes the DC ruling a decision made based upon semantics in the language, and not the intent, which should make a full appeals court ruling that much easier to decide. Personally, i'm looking for any way to energize Democratic voters, both this year, and in 2016, so if the decision were to stand, it's fine by me. The 2016 campaign commercials of Republicans laughing that they took healthcare away from the sick and the elderly is a guaranteed winner for the Democrats, and i'll take that over a temporary set back of the law which would be ammended by a Democratically controlled Congress that would insure no other court decisions wold ever be able to alter or set back the law ever again. Those laws of unintended consequences can be a bitch.
skews13 is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 09:51 AM   #16
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The DC court did not stay their decision, which means subsidies are illegal after the ruling. Now let's see if Obama continues with the subsidies barring an appeal for a stay.

The more I look at the unreasoning by the Fourth Circuit in King v. Burwell, the more it makes me see what cowards they were. They outright admit that that part of the ACA is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations, and then defer nonetheless to agency discretion! Cowardly.


Thanks from Jimmyb
excalibur is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 09:54 AM   #17
Banned
 
Medicine Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northeast
Posts: 9,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Skews seems to have made a compelling legal argument regarding the ruling. Perhaps he can share with us the errors the court commited in the ruling so we can be better informed.
It's much-more-likely Skews has seen the NUMEROUS, "conservative" WALK-BACKS, IN THE PAST, every time you "conservatives" make predictions that BLOW-UP-IN-YOUR-FACE!!!!!!

. . . . .

*

You folks really-DO need to do something about your masochistic-tendencies....


Medicine Man is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 10:32 AM   #18
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
The 4th circuit actually upheld the law at the same time today. Did you know that jimmy? The 4th held that the decision should refer to the statute if there is any question. The DC circuit seems to have made the opposite decision by not adhereing to that standard long adhered to by the courts. Also SCOTUS is loath to hear cases in which the lower courts are in disagreement with, so the plaintiffs are in no danger of getting there any time soon.

Halbig v. Burwell cover two-thirds of the nation.

The Fourth Circuit comes out looking very stupid looking in King v. Burwell wherein they say this:


Quote:
For reasons explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying deference to the IRS’s determination, however, we uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.

When a court makes the admissions the Fourth Circuit made regarding this particular part of the ACA, then nonetheless hands it off to the agency's discretion, you have a cowardly ruling. By the by, premiums are rising faster now than in the previous decade.


Last edited by excalibur; July 22nd, 2014 at 10:36 AM.
excalibur is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 10:39 AM   #19
Banned
 
Medicine Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northeast
Posts: 9,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
If this stands it is a deathblow to Obama and Obamacare. Millions of people that got $15,000 Obamacare policies for $5 a month will have to cough up thousands.


Federal appeals court deals blow to health law

It affects consumers who purchased their coverage through the federal insurance marketplace — or exchange— that serves 36 states.

A three-judge panel in Washington ruled 2-1 that the law, as written, only allows insurance subsidies in states that have set up their own exchanges. That invalidated an Internal Revenue Service regulation that allowed subsidies in all 50 states.
*

Quote:

"Less than an hour after an appeals court in Washington ordered the Obama administration to turn off the spigot of federal subsidies to consumers through U.S.-run health-care exchanges, an appeals court in Virginia ruled that the subsidies should be allowed to keep on flowing."
Medicine Man is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 10:41 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
If this stands it is a deathblow to Obama and Obamacare. Millions of people that got $15,000 Obamacare policies for $5 a month will have to cough up thousands.


Federal appeals court deals blow to health law

It affects consumers who purchased their coverage through the federal insurance marketplace — or exchange— that serves 36 states.

A three-judge panel in Washington ruled 2-1 that the law, as written, only allows insurance subsidies in states that have set up their own exchanges. That invalidated an Internal Revenue Service regulation that allowed subsidies in all 50 states.
Just more republicans and businesses sticking it to the poor and working poor and middle class. SSDD. It's to be expected. It will play out heavy against the republicans in the upcoming elections.

Quote:
In a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a group of small business owners argued that the law authorizes subsidies only for people who buy insurance through markets established by the states — not by the federal government.

A divided court agreed, in a 2-1 decision that could mean premium increases for more than half the 8 million Americans who have purchased taxpayer-subsidized coverage under the law. The ruling affects consumers who bought coverage in the 36 states served by the federal insurance marketplace, or exchange.

The majority opinion concluded that the law, as written, "unambiguously" restricts subsides to consumers in exchanges established by a state. That would invalidate an Internal Revenue Service regulation that tried to sort out confusing wording in the law by concluding that Congress intended for consumers in all 50 states to have subsidized coverage.

The administration is expected to appeal the ruling.

The issue is crucial to the success of the health law because most states have been unable or unwilling to set up their own exchanges. The inaction stems in many instances from opposition by Republican governors to the Affordable Care Act.
Greed and racism. That is what drives the right wing political party.
LongWinded is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
appeals, blow, burwell, court, destroys, federal, halbig, obamacare



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir The White House The White House 0 February 7th, 2013 10:24 AM
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Sends Proposition 8 to Supreme Court! elmo5159 Gay and Lesbian Rights 1 June 5th, 2012 07:04 PM
Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional elmo5159 Gay and Lesbian Rights 30 June 1st, 2012 01:00 AM
Federal Appeals Court Upholds "obamacare" waitingtables Current Events 31 November 13th, 2011 06:33 AM
The Federal Appeals Process tadpole256 Political Talk 2 May 31st, 2005 11:21 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.