re: 4th Circuit COA and dissent in Halbig are hilariously wrong about "intent"

Funny...this may have some legs, because the Obama "knights" have been very quiet (and what arguments have been made [Rex] have been really weak).

Senator Baucus during a Senate hearing clearly states that tax subsidies are only available for state run exchanges.LINK

quote:

---

No.

What they held was that the language of the statute was unambiguous and, therefore, is the reflection of the Congress' intent (applying the rules of statutory construction/interpretation).

Also, there was a reference earlier as to multiple Congresscritters filing amicus briefs about their intent. That's not how it works. To the extent that legislative intent matters, it is what is reflected in the contemporaneous Record during the time the legislation is being considered and voted on (committee minutes/transcripts, floor speeches, etc.). I suspect that if there was a discussion of this record by the majority in Halbig, it was likely that there was no discussion of this issue in the actual Congressional Record.

---

Well there goes the Original intent arguement

quote:

---

Well there goes the Original intent arguement

---

The attempt will be to mold original intent to fit whatever the circumstance is. The bottom line they don't want to admit is that they thought this plan would be whole-heartedly embraced by the state legislators (whether by choice or coercive attempts), if not the voting masses. Their view of reality couldn't encompass a view where most of the states would not create their own exchanges, and any states that did refuse would eventually be strong-armed into falling into line thus it was never conceived that the federal government would have to be the one shelling out the majority of subsidies.

That shortsightedness is biting them in the arse but they don't want to admit it and will use every excuse in the book to avoid doing so.

quote:

---

teke184

---

quote:

---

GumboPot

---

I expect a Pelosi quote soon. I feel one coming on like a Jedi sensing a disturbance in The Force.

quote:

---

There is no evidence that Congress intended to treat citizens in different states differently, and much evidence within the statutes, themselves, that subsidies would be available to everyone

---

bullshite, every single reference to premium assistance in the ACA includes the stipulation that it be done through a State exchange. Further, there is not one single reference to availability of premium assistance through the federal exchange.

quote:

---

The attempt will be to mold original intent to fit whatever the circumstance is. The bottom line they don't want to admit is that they thought this plan would be whole-heartedly embraced by the state legislators (whether by choice or coercive attempts), if not the voting masses. Their view of reality couldn't encompass a view where most of the states would not create their own exchanges, and any states that did refuse would eventually be strong-armed into falling into line thus it was never conceived that the federal government would have to be the one shelling out the majority of subsidies. That shortsightedness is biting them in the arse but they don't want to admit it and will use every excuse in the book to avoid doing so.

---

Remember...these frickers consciously chose to NOT have a severability clause in the law (if one part is found unconstitutional, the law still survives). Their calculus was that judges would be too concerned that they'd have to scuttle the whole law if they found any one significant part unconstitutional. This is one of the reasons John Roberts pulled the "tax" shite out of his arse...to "save" the statute.

It is not at all far-fetched that they would do it this way to coerce the states, knowing the judges would not want to frick them later.

quote:

---

It is not at all far-fetched that they would do it this way to coerce the states, assuming the judges would not want to frick them later.

---

fify because it may well happen.