- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
4th Circuit COA and dissent in Halbig are hilariously wrong about "intent"
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:03 am
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:03 am
Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges
Here's the Youtube of the video in question:
LINK
Rex
Here's the Youtube of the video in question:
LINK
Rex This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 8:14 am
8
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:16 am to udtiger
Obamacare architect:
BOOM!
Is this admissible in court?
The judges stated that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proof that the intent of the Obamacare architects was to limit subsidies to only states that ran their own exchanges. Could this be the smoking gun?
quote:
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits
BOOM!
Is this admissible in court?
The judges stated that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proof that the intent of the Obamacare architects was to limit subsidies to only states that ran their own exchanges. Could this be the smoking gun?
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 8:19 am
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:18 am to GumboPot
Rex will come along shortly and spin and twist this into something to marvel. 
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:20 am to GumboPot
they are really not suppose to question the "intent" anyways, thats just a lame excuse. They are suppose to rule based upon what was stated, nothing more nothing less. I know that doesn't mean they will treat it as such.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:23 am to GumboPot
quote:
Is this admissible in court?
Sadly, it's too late to submit evidence. The Court can only consider the record on appeal.
Also, the first response from retards like Rex and his ilk will be that Gruber was not/is not in Congress; therefore, his statement cannot constitute intent of Congress.
Of course, there's this.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 8:24 am
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:24 am to udtiger
1.) The words in the legislation plainly say that only Obmacare participants in states with state rune exchanges can receive subsidies. Check.
2.) Obamacare architect says on video "if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits" clearly explaining the intent of the law...you don't get subsidies unless your state has a state run exchange. Check.
Regardless of these plain to understand facts, the judges will rule in favor of the IRS.
OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS frickED UP.
2.) Obamacare architect says on video "if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits" clearly explaining the intent of the law...you don't get subsidies unless your state has a state run exchange. Check.
Regardless of these plain to understand facts, the judges will rule in favor of the IRS.
OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS frickED UP.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:26 am to GumboPot
quote:
OUR ENTIRE GOVERNMENT IS frickED UP.
FIFY
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:33 am to udtiger
How in the hell would the architect know what his intent was? He's going to be told what his intent was and he's going to like it.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:38 am to udtiger
quote:
Also, the first response from retards like Rex and his ilk will be that Gruber was not/is not in Congress; therefore, his statement cannot constitute intent of Congress.
You don't have to be one of Rex or his ilk to know that the intent of Congress, if it is expressed, is usually contained in the Congressional record. If it's not in the record or said directly by a Congressman, it doesn't matter.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:40 am to FalseProphet
And intent is only supposed to come into play when the wording of the law is vague, unclear, or ambiguous.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:41 am to udtiger
quote:
Also, the first response from retards like Rex and his ilk will be that Gruber was not/is not in Congress;
It will be "there was more than just one architect".
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:41 am to udtiger
You know, if this were a case between smaller parties where the consequences weren't $36 billion in subsidies and Obama's political legacy was not at stake, I believe ALL legal minds from the entire political spectrum would say this is a slam dunk case for the plaintiff.
But the stakes are entirely too high and many cocktail parties will be missed if the judges rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
But the stakes are entirely too high and many cocktail parties will be missed if the judges rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:45 am to GumboPot
For those that want to hear it, it's at the 32:05 mark in the video.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:47 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
And intent is only supposed to come into play when the wording of the law is vague, unclear, or ambiguous.
And, if you really want to get technical, legislative intent only really matters if you think its a proper tool of legislative interpretation. At least three judges on the current Supreme Court think it is not.
Scalia would look at this video and laugh in OPs face for even suggesting that it should be considered. The majority would examine legislative intent as described in actual statements by Congressman and the record. Scalia would dissent, Thomas would silently concur in the dissent, and Justice Roberts would file a brief concurrence suggesting that they review their statutory interpretation jurisprudence.
OP clearly has no idea how this works.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:48 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
And intent is only supposed to come into play when the wording of the law is vague, unclear, or ambiguous.
DING!
And, it's not ambiguous.
State Exchanges are in a completely separate section of the law from "federal" exchanges. Moreover, "States" are separately defined from the "United States" in 42 USC (and other parts of the US Code).
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:51 am to FalseProphet
quote:
You don't have to be one of Rex or his ilk to know that the intent of Congress, if it is expressed, is usually contained in the Congressional record. If it's not in the record or said directly by a Congressman, it doesn't matter.
Not according to the Fourth Circuit (and Po Lil' Ole Lame Rexy). They felt that they could infer intent.
The problem with this steaming pile of a clusterf*ck of a bill is that everything was done behind closed doors. As Lil Nancy the C*nt said -- you have to pass it to find out what's in it.
So, there is no official Congressional intent. But, that will not stop biased and politicized judges from "finding" it because it's all politics to them.
Can't wait for Lil' Ruthie's dissent! With every word, you'll be able to see her actually crying like the little biased c*nt that she is.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 9:04 am
Posted on 7/25/14 at 9:03 am to udtiger
Oh damn!
Calling that guy an "architect" of the law is not hyperbole. He is a prestigious health economist with a prestigious school and helped design the damn thing. He is absolutely qualified to speak as to the policy intent (not that the words are even unclear), and what he says is motherfricking direct.
Halbig was 100% right, confirmed.
Calling that guy an "architect" of the law is not hyperbole. He is a prestigious health economist with a prestigious school and helped design the damn thing. He is absolutely qualified to speak as to the policy intent (not that the words are even unclear), and what he says is motherfricking direct.
Halbig was 100% right, confirmed.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 9:06 am
Posted on 7/25/14 at 9:04 am to udtiger
Gruber had very little to do with crafting the ACA, except with initial mathematical theorization. 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. Also, the congessmen,THEMSELVES, who crafted the law submitted briefs to the district courts making crystal clear what their intent was.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 9:09 am to Rex
quote:
Gruber had very little to do with crafting the ACA, except with initial mathematical theorization. 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. Also, the congessmen,THEMSELVES, who crafted the law submitted briefs to the district courts making crystal clear what their intent was.
PATHETIC -- even by YOUR low standards!
quote:
There is no evidence that Congress intended to treat citizens in different states differently
The "intent" is right there -- IN THE F*CKING WORDING OF THE STATUTE. It's clear to anyone who isn't a complete f*cking Kool-Aid drinking pathetic partisan hack.
quote:
Also, the congessmen,THEMSELVES, who crafted the law submitted briefs to the district courts making crystal clear what their intent was.
The fact that you think any Congressman was actually involved in drafting this steaming pile of dogsh!t shows how f*cking stupid you are. And, just LIKE YOU, those f*ckers are LYING because they realized later that the whole system would implode when they couldn't extort enough states to establish their own STATE EXCHANGES. NANCY PELOSI ADMITTED THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ THE F*CKER.
Have you no shame?
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 9:16 am
Posted on 7/25/14 at 9:11 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:Won't see that clip on the evening news.
Halbig was 100% right, confirmed.
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News