There's no testimony before the Supreme Court -- or appellate courts. This would have had to have been done at the district court level.

Appellate courts are generally confined to the record established at the district court level. But, the Supreme's can take judicial notice of pretty much anything they want.

Where Gruber may be in trouble is at the district court level. He signed a amicus brief stating that the provision was merely a typo and it was never intended that people who get insurance through the Federal exchange wouldn't be entitled to subsidies.

CLEARLY he lied in that brief and the district court could hold him in contempt or the Justice Department could look into perjury charges -- I'll hold my breath waiting for Odumbf*ck's Justice Department to do anything ethical.

This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 7:42 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Lsut81

Member since Jun 2005

80363 posts

Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:41 am to MMauler

quote:
There's no testimony before the Supreme Court -- or appellate courts.

And thats what I was asking... I didn't think there was any witnesses or testimony.

So basically, the only thing that can be presented to the USSC by the opponents of the law is "Here is something that Gruber, one of the architects of the legislation said in public... not on record or in an official capacity of a government employee"

Basically a big pile of nothing

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by NC_Tigah

Carolinas

Member since Sep 2003

124668 posts

Posted on 11/16/14 at 9:17 am to MMauler

quote:
Where Gruber may be in trouble is at the district court level. He signed a amicus brief stating that the provision was merely a typo and it was never intended that people who get insurance through the Federal exchange wouldn't be entitled to subsidies.

quote:
[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 25, 2014]
No. 14-5018
__________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
JACQUELINE HALBIG, ET AL.,
Appellants,
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.,
Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (NO. 13-623 (PLF))
__________________________________________________________________
BRIEF AMICI CURIAE FOR ECONOMIC SCHOLARS
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES

=================
Excerpts from the Amicus Brief . . . .
=================

The well-known Gruber Microsimulation Model (“Gruber Model” or “GMSIM”) predicts that if subsidies are unavailable to low- and middle-income individuals on the federally-run Exchange, premiums would increase. The Gruber Model further demonstrates that those increases would be dramatic. For the typical subsidy-eligible participant

=================

The predictions of the Gruber Model are corroborated by real world experiences. Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey tried to implement insurance reforms barring discrimination without simultaneously ensuring wide participation through subsidies and mandates

=================

In economic literature and the popular press, the interrelation among the ACA reforms is often described as a “three-legged stool.” See, e.g., Jonathan Gruber, The Impacts of the Affordable Care Act: How Reasonable Are the Projections?

=================

Economist and MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber has developed a sophisticated economic model that allows for a robust prediction of outcomes in the health care system, depending on various policy changes. The Gruber Microsimulation Model (“GMSIM”) utilizes two primary sets of data: (1) Fixed information on individuals, derived from 2011 Current Population Survey data and updated to 2013 and later years; and (2) varying information on policy parameters, which inform the changes in price and eligibility of various forms of insurance. See MIT Economics, Jonathan Gruber, Documentation for the Gruber Microsimulation Model at 2-3, available at https://economics.mit.edu/faculty/ gruberj/lightread. The GMSIM has been cited as one of the leading options for modeling health insurance reforms such as the ACA.

=================

B. The Only Reasonable Interpretation of The ACA’s Provisions,
Structure, and Purpose Is That Congress Intended To Make
Subsidies Available To Participants On The Federally-Run
Exchange.

All three legs of the stool – guaranteed issue, the individual mandate, and premium subsidies – are necessary to achieve the ACA’s goals. And it is impossible to parse the statute without concluding that Congress understood and intended all three legs to work together. It is absurd to argue that Congress set up a federally-run Exchange while simultaneously denying participants the subsidies necessary to make the Exchange functional.

LINK