Has the Obama administration ever won a court case? I mean, the defeats seem endless.
Like I said, somebody should have read the law before passing it.
1 Like
Maybe legislators should pass better laws… or have the executive not violate the laws that are passed.
I dunno. You tell me the better solution.
It’s unanimous. Americans do not like Pelosi’s legislative strategy.
Uh Oh.
When the health care law was adopted in 2010, Mr. Obama and
Congressional Democrats assumed that states would set up their own
exchanges. But many Republican governors and state legislators balked,
and opposition to the law became a rallying cry for the party.
So Obama knew why the law was written the way it was, then he tried to violate it after his assumption turned out to be wrong.
Let me repeat - Uh Oh.
So another court District Court upholds the law as written, Oh noes!
Not even close to being the same case. Good news for the politicians and their staff though!
great, now fat, lazy, inbred Americans who have made themselves sick can continue to be covered on the dole.
The full DC court will overturn this ruling.
Today’s ruling is just sensational. The whole affair is academic. This is going to the Supreme Court no matter what happens at the full court. Obama should be appealing in this case, unless the judges on the DC court, including the 3 that were appointed by the Senate after Harry Reid changed the filibuster, are judicial activists.
Should the Obama judges recuse themselves?
You should send them an article on the English language.
You should send them a Copy of The Federalist Papers!
MeltdownAtUsBro is on the move.
And now the voice of reason comes in to clear things up for everyone and assure the Tea Partiers indeed this part of the law too shall be upheld:
…under the Supreme Court’s Chevron Doctrine, courts typically defer to a federal agency’s reading of a law so long as “the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Randolph and Griffith get around this doctrine by claiming that the law “the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance” purchased on state-run exchanges.
If you truly believe that the only possible interpretation of the Affordable Care Act’s language is the one adopted by Randolph and Griffith on Tuesday, then you may want to go back to the top of this article and start reading it all over again. In any event, two federal judges previously concluded that Obamacare is unambiguous in the other direction — that is, it unambiguously offers subsidies to people who purchase insurance through federal exchanges. That alone demonstrates that, even if the law isn’t completely clear, its meaning is at least uncertain enough that the courts should defer to the agency’s reading underChevron.
More importantly, Randolph and Griffith’s own colleagues are unlikely to allow this opinion to stand for long. The federal government may now appeal this decision to the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where Democrats enjoy a 7-4 majority among the court’s active judges. It is unlikely, to say the least, that a Democratic bench will strike down President Obama’s primary legislative accomplishment based on the highly doubtful reasoning contained in Randolph and Griffith’s opinion.
Should the full DC Circuit intervene, of course, their decision can ultimately be appealed to the GOP-controlled Supreme Court. But we’ve already seen this story play out once before. The last time conservative lawyers brought a case to the Supreme Court seeking to gut Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the bulk of the law.
It’s too bad you’ve already checked out.
“State exchanges can provide subsidies. Federal exchanges cannot.”
How many ways can you interpret that, Progs? Seriously.
The 9th Circuit Court of Virginia unanimously said you’d have to be a partisan cum guzzler to fall for that.
holy smokes.
LMAO. That is one of the funniest cartoons ever!