re: Obamacare Appeal --- Jonathan Gruber doing more work

quote:

---

no one can call them on their bullshite if they too judicial notice of something, but the federal rules of evidence limit what a judge can take judicial notice of. The Gruber videos would not fit in there

---

They're the court of last resort.

Do you really think that the Supremes should just let Obama's Solicitor General stand there and LIE HIS A$$ OFF and say that it was just a "typo" and that there is no possible reason why it would have been written that way -- AND -- no one in the Obama administration or in the Congress ever thought that people who signed up through the Federal exchange wouldn't get a subsidy????


THIS presents the exact scenario when the Supremes SHOULD take Judicial Notice.

HERE'S an article on Judicial Notice at the Appellate Level --

quote:

---

Under Fed. R. Evid. 201[f], judicial notice of adjudicative facts may be taken at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal. In practice, appellate courts frequently take judicial notice of both adjudicative and legislative facts presented for the first time on appeal, whether requested by a party or on their own initiative. See, e.g., Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Union, Local 100 of New York, N.Y. & Vicinity, AFL-CIO v. City of New York Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 311 F.3d 534, 540 n.1 [2d Cir. 2002]; In re Indian Palms Assoc. Ltd ., 61 F.3d 197, 205 [3d Cir. 1995].

---

Here's another quote from the article --

quote:

---

Rule 201(b) allows judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are "not subject to reasonable dispute" because they are "generally known" or are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."

---

Here, Gruber is on video. There is NO reason to question the validity.

quote:

---

but the federal rules of evidence limit what a judge can take judicial notice of. The Gruber videos would not fit in there.

---

The states will argue exchange subsidies were designed as tools of Federal coercement.
The Feds will claim their design was nothing more than accidental typos.

Gruber was heavily involved in design and analysis of the ACA. So you are saying that when the Feds' arguments fall 100% antithetical to Gruber's attestations, SCOTUS justices will not consider that fact? You feel it will have no influence privately or publicly on their impressions?

I find that an incredible supposition.

There is another angle though IMO.
Roberts twisted his ACA ruling based on the thought that SCOTUS should minimize interference with the electorate. 2012 was coming up. If We the People did not want Obamacare, We the People had a remedy in the next election. However, that belief was predicated on We the People having facts fairly at our disposal to make an informed decision. Again, Gruber makes it clear We the People were maliciously duped.

If you think that concept will not enter into Spring conversations in Robert's chambers, I'd have to believe you're naive. Will it be explicitly stated as such in the final ruling? Probably not.