Oh boy, another Obamacare lawsuit!

[ksen]

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9297565/obamacare-lawsuit-standing-victory

An Obamacare case cleared a key legal hurdle Wednesday, when a federal judge granted House Republicans what is known as "standing" to sue the Obama administration over one of the law's provisions.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) filed a lawsuit last July contending that the White House had broken the law by giving insurance companies money that Congress hadn't authorized.

Many legal observers expected the lawsuit to fail on standing, predicting that Congress wouldn't be able to show a way in which the Obama administration had harmed legislators, a prerequisite for a court challenge.

But in a surprise ruling, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia allowed the new challenge — which takes aim at a subset of the health law's insurance subsidies — to proceed.

Here's what the House is suing over:

While the Affordable Care Act authorized these cost-sharing subsidies when it was passed in 2010, the House lawsuit says it never appropriated the necessary funding to be sent over to Health and Human Services. Here's the relevant bit of the lawsuit on this issue:

Congress has not appropriated any funds for Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers for Fiscal Years 2014 or 2015.

Notwithstanding the lack of any congressional appropriation for Section 1402 Offset Program payments, defendants Lew and the Treasury Department, at the direction of defendants Burwell and HHS, began making Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers in January 2014, and, upon information and belief, continues to make such payments.

The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") has reported that Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers for Fiscal Year 2014 were estimated to be $3.978 billion.​

Later, the lawsuit argues that "the House has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by the unconstitutional actions of defendants Lew ... which, among other things, usurp the House's legislative authority."

Congress authorizes subsidies, doesn't fund subsidies, gets mad when the Executive branch disburses the authorized subsidies and sues the Executive.

 

[arkirk]

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9297565/obamacare-lawsuit-standing-victory



Here's what the House is suing over:

While the Affordable Care Act authorized these cost-sharing subsidies when it was passed in 2010, the House lawsuit says it never appropriated the necessary funding to be sent over to Health and Human Services. Here's the relevant bit of the lawsuit on this issue:

Congress has not appropriated any funds for Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers for Fiscal Years 2014 or 2015.

Notwithstanding the lack of any congressional appropriation for Section 1402 Offset Program payments, defendants Lew and the Treasury Department, at the direction of defendants Burwell and HHS, began making Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers in January 2014, and, upon information and belief, continues to make such payments.

The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") has reported that Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers for Fiscal Year 2014 were estimated to be $3.978 billion.​

Later, the lawsuit argues that "the House has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by the unconstitutional actions of defendants Lew ... which, among other things, usurp the House's legislative authority."

Congress authorizes subsidies, doesn't fund subsidies, gets mad when the Executive branch disburses the authorized subsidies and sues the Executive.

Doesn't it seem about time for this country to wake up and throw the entire Republican party out of all those congressional offices. Their mean spirit is about the meanest thing in America. I don't know when you have congressmen that would throw pensioners out in the street and deny women in need healthcare, and college kids a hand up on their education. Everything about them spells SMALL, SPITEFUL, AND STUPID. It also spells denial of humanism in favor of the worst forms of human abuse...witness the fact that this country sank into torture routines during the Bush years.

 

[maxparrish]

It doesn't matter anymore. Justice Roberts was bullied and panicked into switching his opposition the first time around, issuing a majority opinion so specious that his own liberal side didn't buy into his legal reasoning. The second time around, he had to justify his blunder with the Helen Keller defense, reputedly he couldn't see the phrase "established by the state" no matter how hard he looked.

SCOTUSCARE will be protected by the court majority no matter what the Constitution or the law says or who violated it. Just more lawless court "play-fights".

 

[laughing dog]

It doesn't matter anymore. Justice Roberts was bullied and panicked into switching his opposition the first time around, issuing a majority opinion so specious that his own liberal side didn't buy into his legal reasoning. The second time around, he had to justify his blunder with the Helen Keller defense, reputedly he couldn't see the phrase "established by the state" no matter how hard he looked.

SCOTUSCARE will be protected by the court majority no matter what the Constitution or the law says or who violated it. Just more lawless court "play-fights".

Another example of hysterical whining from a sore losing ideologue.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

SCOTUSCARE

Why do you keep acting as though you're not just as partisan as the liberals?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Umm... the Supreme Court ruling for this will be simple, Congress doesn't have standing. Bam! Do we need to move forward with another farce?

I think it is funny the argument by the Republicans is, 'Congress passed legislation to fund something, however we are refusing to fund it, therefore any money spent is illegal.' Shouldn't Congress be found in contempt for not providing funds in the first place?!

 

[arkirk]

Umm... the Supreme Court ruling for this will be simple, Congress doesn't have standing. Bam! Do we need to move forward with another farce?

I think it is funny the argument by the Republicans is, 'Congress passed legislation to fund something, however we are refusing to fund it, therefore any money spent is illegal.' Shouldn't Congress be found in contempt for not providing funds in the first place?!

I don't think we know what this quirky Supreme Court will do. It should not be trusted. It should be reworked and the likes of Scalia, and Thomas should never find a place in our system of jurisprudence. They are men who need to recuse themselves from ALL COURT ACTIVITY. They won't and so the beat goes on and we keep getting all sorts of oligarch friendly rulings out of this system of Jackassery. Should we be happy with this "best of all systems" continue braying our way down life's path, patting ourselves on the shoulder and just glad to get a breath of fresh air every once in awhile? We probably will. After all, we have nothing but time on our hands and no perceived stake in this society.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Umm... the Supreme Court ruling for this will be simple, Congress doesn't have standing. Bam! Do we need to move forward with another farce?

I think it is funny the argument by the Republicans is, 'Congress passed legislation to fund something, however we are refusing to fund it, therefore any money spent is illegal.' Shouldn't Congress be found in contempt for not providing funds in the first place?!

I don't think we know what this quirky Supreme Court will do. It should not be trusted. It should be reworked and the likes of Scalia, and Thomas should never find a place in our system of jurisprudence. They are men who need to recuse themselves from ALL COURT ACTIVITY. They won't and so the beat goes on and we keep getting all sorts of oligarch friendly rulings out of this system of Jackassery. Should we be happy with this "best of all systems" continue braying our way down life's path, patting ourselves on the shoulder and just glad to get a breath of fresh air every once in awhile? We probably will. After all, we have nothing but time on our hands and no perceived stake in this society.

Ruling someone doesn't have standing is what they'll do because it'll be quick and they can take a long weekend and not worry about setting precedence.

 

[maxparrish]

It doesn't matter anymore. Justice Roberts was bullied and panicked into switching his opposition the first time around, issuing a majority opinion so specious that his own liberal side didn't buy into his legal reasoning. The second time around, he had to justify his blunder with the Helen Keller defense, reputedly he couldn't see the phrase "established by the state" no matter how hard he looked.

SCOTUSCARE will be protected by the court majority no matter what the Constitution or the law says or who violated it. Just more lawless court "play-fights".

Another example of hysterical whining from a sore losing ideologue.

As opposed to sore winning ideologue?

 

[maxparrish]

SCOTUSCARE

Why do you keep acting as though you're not just as partisan as the liberals?

Sure I am partisan. But I am also correct.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why do you keep acting as though you're not just as partisan as the liberals?

Sure I am partisan. But I am also correct.

You think there's such a thing as a correct political view?

 

[dismal]

Sure I am partisan. But I am also correct.

You think there's such a thing as a correct political view?

What sort of useless moron would spend time on a political forum without thinking some political views were more correct than others?

 

[laughing dog]

Another example of hysterical whining from a sore losing ideologue.

As opposed to sore winning ideologue?

I'm not sore. Nor am I posting bombastic character assassinations.

 

[bilby]

You think there's such a thing as a correct political view?

What sort of useless moron would spend time on a political forum without thinking some political views were more correct than others?

It's Political Correctness gone MAD!