Your ‘King v Burrell’ Thoughts Go Here
I realize American voters (and let’s face it – particularly liberal leaning American voters) are a lazy bunch of losers, but if Chief Justice John Roberts decides to strip 7 million people in some three dozen states of health insurance on a technicality, I think things could actually go Ka-Plewey.
So for so good. The two key votes are Roberts and Kennedy. Roberts has remained silent, but Kennedy asked a question that is good for the government:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/first-mid-argument-update-king-v-burwell/
Liberals lead line in questioning of Petitioner in King, but Kennedy asks important question about disrupting federal state balance.
Counsel for the petitioners – who are seeking to invalidate subsidies in states with federal exchanges – faced tough questioning from the more liberal Justices in the first 20 minutes of today’s argument. In particular, a perceptive hypothetical from Justice Kagan forced the petitioners to concede that context, rather than just the literal text of the statute, is important to understanding it. Once the argument turned to context, however, Justice Kennedy expressed deep concern with a system where the statute would potentially destroy the insurance system in states that chose not to establish their own exchanges – likening this to an unconstitutional form of federal coercion. While Justice Kennedy also suggested that perhaps this reading could not be avoided, his skepticism suggests that both sides will be trying hard to get his critical vote.
If the petitioners lose this one perhaps there are federal guidelines about the actual format of the document itself. Maybe the margins are too wide or the font is out of compliance. They could try that.
If they win I think the petitioners should have to go to each individual who loses health coverage and personally piss in her or his face. Why hide behind arcane legal tricks and keep this all at arm’s length. Anything worth doing is worth doing right.
I (heart) DG.
Anyone who argues that the answer is clear is a hack or a joke.
That said, if not in this case, then in other cases, the Courts should stop saving Congress from its poor drafting; maybe then, we would not have these problems. Congress (or behind-the-scenes folk) would actually take care in drafting.
If the drafting is cleaned up, the font and margins will be problematic, as Dorian pointed out.
As long as we have a black or Democrat in the White House it will be nullification now, nullification tomorrow, nullification forever.
When the framers used the word “rights” they didn’t mean legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement. They meant the opposite of lefts. “Arms” aren’t guns. They are the appendages sticking out of your shoulders. Don’t even get me started on the original intent of search and seizure. Have you ever had an unreasonable seizure? It’s quite unpleasant I can assure you.
It’s not because people don’t understand context. Everybody understands it just fine. It’s because they don’t like it.
I (heart) Dorian, too!
According to that corrupt partisan fuckstick, Scalia, the entire statute is irrelevant, except for the one sentence that supports the conservative interpretation.
That’s some nice goddam jurisprudence.
Since october 2013, thru september of 2014, my spouse and me lost $1120 per month directly due to obama care, now my middle sons cost for health insurance, single in late twenties, doubled from $1800 per year to just under $3600 per year. I noticed you did not include this data in your arguement
Obama naively gambled by trying to use this lever to force states to set up their own exchanges. What was naive about his gamble was that he thought america would like obamacare so much that he would maintain majorities in both houses of congress. So he gambled, and he is going to lose. The evidence is powerful, this was not a typo, but was definately an attempt by the administration to force the states into doing something they did not want to do. It is not justice Roberts job to examine my increased cost due to obamacare, or to examine who will benefit (ie, people who work), or who will lose(ie, people who dont work), but simply to interpret the law as it is written(by only democrats, who believe themselves to be so much more intelligent than everyone)
I consider myself naive looking back. I never thought Republicans could be so full of hate that they’d try to nullify two Presidetial elections. Democrats certainly have been naive. They still don’t understand the depths of Republican malevolence.
Jason, you saying tongue in cheek that you were naive is irrelevant, you were not writing any laws, and you could not have done anything different that mattered anyway, in the case of the administration, and other democrats in congress, they were in a position to not gamble, they could have just not used these 4 words, and played fair with the states, instead of playing hsrdball, if you dont believe the intent of these 4 words, refer to grubers original comments on the subject, now I know why liberals seldom gamble, they are not very good at it
So this is the ne conservative line? That Obama wrote that line into the law intentionally?? Interesting. Still wrong and transparently fraudulent, but interesting.
@Jason330:
If you read federal statutes every day, then you would agree with me. But if statutes were clearer, then I would be out of a job.
No doubt. Passing only clearly and accurately drafted laws would be the ideal situation. Professor Charles Kingsfield would be deeply unamused by all of this.
I hope they undo it…let’s see what happens. What will they do then? Can you imagine the collective freakout by BCBS, Highmark and Wellpoint? oh man…classic.
@Jason330:
That Kingsfield is quite a son of a b.
Justice Kennedy wrote this in Lamie v. U.S. Trustee:
“If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, than it should amend the statute to conform it to its intent. ‘It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what we might think . . . is the preferred result.'”
540 U.S. 526, 542 (2004). Justices Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer joined the opinion in full. So did Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor and Thomas. Justice Scalia joined this part of the opinion.
Technicalities matter because otherwise the President would be enforcing unwritten laws. The question is whether this particular technicality produces ambiguity or not.
The Blues are late in paying the Doctors!! This is a tax, plain and simple. Everything that they said was a lie; ACA is higher, can’t keep DR., can’t keep your insurance…..It’s a joke!