re: Obamacare, not so fast

Scalia's dissents rarely, if ever, revolve around clear and unambiguous language - which is exactly what we have here.

I won't make any comments on Ginsburg other that to state the obvious - worst and most biased Justice in the history of the Court.

quote:

---

worst and most biased Justice in the history of the Court.

---

certainly that has nothing to do with your political ideology does it?

quote:

---

Scalia's dissents rarely, if ever, revolve around clear and unambiguous language

---

that seems to be what most of his dissents revolve around in my experience. he gets pissed that the majority didn't use plain meaning. or his interpretation of the plain meaning.

But scalia can be a hack and biased as well as any of them. He can be quick to drop his plain meaning if it no longer fit his narrative. plus rarely you see a judge make personal attacks in dissents but Scalia is quite quick to do so.

You realize this will energize millions of voters who might otherwise have been apathetic.

At any rate, the 4th circuit ruled in the opposite direction today. LINK

quote:

---

There really is no logical reason to restrict subsidies to just state-run exchanges.

---

Congress was likely assuming that no state would ever turn down money for its citizens and that they would all set up exchanges.

It never occurred to them that this many states would stand against it. It just goes to show how out of touch Washington is.

The lead-in to the 4th Circuit Opinion.

quote:

---

The plaintiffs-appellants bring this suit challenging the validity of an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) final rule implementing the premium tax credit provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA” or “Act”). The final rule interprets the ACA as authorizing the IRS to grant tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on both state-run insurance “Exchanges” and federally-facilitated “Exchanges” created and operated by the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). The plaintiffs contend that the IRS’s interpretation is contrary to the language of the statute, which, they assert, authorizes tax credits only for individuals who purchase insurance on state-run Exchanges. 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. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court.

---

I guess it's not as clear as many of you seem to think. If anyone is keeping count, that's 4 judges to 2 in favor of ambiguity.

Here's the Opinion.

In this case, it's a Clinton/Bush appointee (recess appointment by Clinton - nominated by Bush), and two Obama appointees.

The only ones that matter are the 9 in the SCOTUS

quote:

---

You realize this will energize millions of voters who might otherwise have been apathetic.

---

Nothing energizes dimocratix more than free money. That has been the case for my entire lifetime.

Will John Roberts take the opportunity to correct his grievous mistake?

quote:

---

I guess it's not as clear as many of you seem to think. If anyone is keeping count, that's 4 judges to 2 in favor of ambiguity

---

Oh no - it's clear. When the Obama/Clinton appointees admit that the "common sense" reading would lead to the opposite conclusion, you know you better put your hipboots on because the bullsh#t is going to be deep. I was literally laughing out loud as I read this biased and intellectually bankrupt drivel.

Nah, they'll take this one. Scalia has said before that the court needs to take a case to establish how clear something needs to be to be unambiguous.

This would be a great case.