D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Decides IRS Rule Permitting Subsidies for Federal Exchanges Is Not Permitted Under the ACA

[laughing dog]

I know what you mean. I mean look at what you said.

I don't really doubt they intended to throw about subsidies to everyone.

Yet, even when you know that, you still seem to want to argue against it. Do your partisan goggles come with lenses that aren't so dark? That may help you.

The pivotal language from the statute is as follows:

" [e]ach Stateshall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange."

Each State that elects...

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State-- (i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement--...
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State​

Emphasis mine.

First, it is important to observe the word "State" is capitalized and is preceded, in some places, with the word "each." This is important because this is a clear reference to the individual 50 states of the United States.

Now, the statutory language regarding exchanges established by the state reads as "Each State shall...establish an American Health Benefit Exchange," with subsequent language in the statute making clear the state may elect to establish an exchange with the language under section 1321 reading "Each State that elects..." to establish an exchange. (The is a constitutional reason for the change from "shall" to "elects".) Once again, this language is a clear reference to the states in their individual capacity. So, we have a clear understanding the law discusses State established exchanges.

Now, does the statute have a contingency plan in the event the State or States choose not to establish an exchange? Yes. What does this part of the statute say? I posted it above but repost again in italics. "[t]he Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State."

Who is doing the establishing of the exchange in the event the State does not establish an exchange? Is it the "State"? No, it is "the Secretary". The "Secretary" is not the "State." The statute treats them as different entities, different subjects, and we know this because in one section of the statute the "State" (capital "S") is used and elsewhere the word "Secretary" (capital "S") is used. The "Secretary" establishing an exchange is not the same as or identical to the "State" establishing an exchange. The Secretary is one entity, a federal entity, and the State is a separate entity. If one entity, the State, fails to do X, then the Secretary will do X.

It is important to note, the statute does not contain the languge of, "The Secretary established exchanges for the State, and operated within the State, shall constitute as a State exchange." No such language exists in the statute. None. The statute discusses the "State" establishing exchanges, and in the event the "State" does not establish an exchange then the "Secretary" establishes an exchange.

In addition, the language of "establish and operate such Exchange within the State" is pivotal. The exchange is to be established by the Secretary "within" the State and the Secretary is to "operate" the exchange "within the State." The State isn't establishing or operating the exchange. Rather, the "Secretary" is establishing and operating the exchange. The State, under the law, has no operating control over the exchange established by the Secretary. Furthermore, the exchange is created and operated "within" the State. The word "within" gives the location and nothing more, the word "within" doesn't suggest the exchange is the State exchange. Given the fact the State does not have operational control over the exchange created by the "Secretary", the exchange is established by the "Secretary" and the exchange is merely, and nothing more, located "within" the State, it is inconceivable to think an exchange established and operated by the "Secretary" is a "State" exchange.

Quite simply, this isn't ambiguity, as the 4th Circuit said. This isn't ambiguous at all.

Not to you, but to 3 judges it was sufficient.

 

[James Madison]

I know what you mean. I mean look at what you said.

I don't really doubt they intended to throw about subsidies to everyone.

Yet, even when you know that, you still seem to want to argue against it. Do your partisan goggles come with lenses that aren't so dark? That may help you.

The pivotal language from the statute is as follows:

" [e]ach Stateshall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange."

Each State that elects...

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State-- (i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement--...
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State​

Emphasis mine.

First, it is important to observe the word "State" is capitalized and is preceded, in some places, with the word "each." This is important because this is a clear reference to the individual 50 states of the United States.

Now, the statutory language regarding exchanges established by the state reads as "Each State shall...establish an American Health Benefit Exchange," with subsequent language in the statute making clear the state may elect to establish an exchange with the language under section 1321 reading "Each State that elects..." to establish an exchange. (The is a constitutional reason for the change from "shall" to "elects".) Once again, this language is a clear reference to the states in their individual capacity. So, we have a clear understanding the law discusses State established exchanges.

Now, does the statute have a contingency plan in the event the State or States choose not to establish an exchange? Yes. What does this part of the statute say? I posted it above but repost again in italics. "[t]he Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State."

Who is doing the establishing of the exchange in the event the State does not establish an exchange? Is it the "State"? No, it is "the Secretary". The "Secretary" is not the "State." The statute treats them as different entities, different subjects, and we know this because in one section of the statute the "State" (capital "S") is used and elsewhere the word "Secretary" (capital "S") is used. The "Secretary" establishing an exchange is not the same as or identical to the "State" establishing an exchange. The Secretary is one entity, a federal entity, and the State is a separate entity. If one entity, the State, fails to do X, then the Secretary will do X.

It is important to note, the statute does not contain the languge of, "The Secretary established exchanges for the State, and operated within the State, shall constitute as a State exchange." No such language exists in the statute. None. The statute discusses the "State" establishing exchanges, and in the event the "State" does not establish an exchange then the "Secretary" establishes an exchange.

In addition, the language of "establish and operate such Exchange within the State" is pivotal. The exchange is to be established by the Secretary "within" the State and the Secretary is to "operate" the exchange "within the State." The State isn't establishing or operating the exchange. Rather, the "Secretary" is establishing and operating the exchange. The State, under the law, has no operating control over the exchange established by the Secretary. Furthermore, the exchange is created and operated "within" the State. The word "within" gives the location and nothing more, the word "within" doesn't suggest the exchange is the State exchange. Given the fact the State does not have operational control over the exchange created by the "Secretary", the exchange is established by the "Secretary" and the exchange is merely, and nothing more, located "within" the State, it is inconceivable to think an exchange established and operated by the "Secretary" is a "State" exchange.

Quite simply, this isn't ambiguity, as the 4th Circuit said. This isn't ambiguous at all.

Not to you, but to 3 judges it was sufficient.

Yeah but the statutory language doesn't lie. Based on this language in the statute, those 3 judges have the weaker argument, and factually they have the inferior position.

 

[dismal]

Took a quick look at one of the USSC precedent cases mentioned in the DC decision. I think this will be a tough one to get around:

The government concedes that neither paragraph 1, paragraph 3, paragraph 4, paragraph 5, or any other paragraph 4 of section 800(a), provides in terms for taxing a privilege like that enjoyed by the plaintiff. It makes no contention here that the tax can be sustained under any paragraph of section 800(a) unless it be paragraph 3. It argues that Congress clearly intended to tax all sales of tickets; that there is in the section no indication of intention to exempt from the tax any sale of tickets or any resale at a profit; that the receipts here taxed are in character substantially similar to those specifically described in paragraph 3; that this general purpose of Congress should be given effect, so as to reach any case within the aim of the legislation; and that the act should, therefore, be extended by construction to cover this case. It may be assumed that Congress did not purpose to exempt from taxation this class of tickets. But the act contains no provision referring to tickets of the character here involved; and there is no general provision in the act under which classes of tickets not enumerated are subjected to a tax. Congress undertook to accomplish its purpose by dealing specifically, and in some respects differently, with different classes of tickets and with tickets of any one class under different situations. The particularization and detail with which the scope of each provision, the amount of the tax thereby imposed, and the incidence of the tax, were specified, preclude an extension of any provision by implication to any other subject. The statute was evidently drawn with care. Its language is plain and unambiguous. What the government asks is not a construction of a statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/270/245

Even if one accepts the general purpose of a law, government is not allowed to assume specific mechanisms to achieve that general purpose that are not in the law itself.

 

[maxparrish]

You mean no evidence other than the sworn amicus brief filed by those that crafted and passed the legislation and that the withholding of tax subsidies was never used as a stick to convince unwilling states to create their own exchanges instead of relying on the federal government to do it.

Other than that you're right.

However I am sure you recall former house and majority leader Pelosi explaining to the hoi polloi that they had to pass the law in order to discover what was in it.

lol, yeah and now we're finding out that the intent was for all exchange participants to get subsidies if their income qualified them for subsidies.

When the majority leader who represents those who passed it says they don't know what they wrote and authorized, then ex post claims about their intentions are not only suspect but also beside the point - in statutory law words have commonly understood meaning. Regardless of what was allegedly intended by those who authored and/or approved the law, or the lack of positive effects from their willfully ignorant law making, the law's plain and unambiguous text has become the law (as well as the strongest direct evidence of actual intent).

Besides, if the law was not plainly written, and truly too ambiguous to implement, it is Congress's duty (not the IRS) to provide clarity and correction. It is not acceptable for the majority to be passing laws that it has no idea of 'what's in it' and then expect the executive branch to rewrite it as it desires. We believe in democracy, correct?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know what you mean. I mean look at what you said.

I don't really doubt they intended to throw about subsidies to everyone.

Yet, even when you know that, you still seem to want to argue against it. Do your partisan goggles come with lenses that aren't so dark? That may help you.

The pivotal language from the statute is as follows:

" [e]ach Stateshall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange."

Each State that elects...

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State-- (i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement--...
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State​

Emphasis mine.

First, it is important to observe the word "State" is capitalized and is preceded, in some places, with the word "each." This is important because this is a clear reference to the individual 50 states of the United States.

Now, the statutory language regarding exchanges established by the state reads as "Each State shall...establish an American Health Benefit Exchange," with subsequent language in the statute making clear the state may elect to establish an exchange with the language under section 1321 reading "Each State that elects..." to establish an exchange. (The is a constitutional reason for the change from "shall" to "elects".) Once again, this language is a clear reference to the states in their individual capacity. So, we have a clear understanding the law discusses State established exchanges.

Now, does the statute have a contingency plan in the event the State or States choose not to establish an exchange? Yes. What does this part of the statute say? I posted it above but repost again in italics. "[t]he Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State."

Who is doing the establishing of the exchange in the event the State does not establish an exchange? Is it the "State"? No, it is "the Secretary". The "Secretary" is not the "State." The statute treats them as different entities, different subjects, and we know this because in one section of the statute the "State" (capital "S") is used and elsewhere the word "Secretary" (capital "S") is used. The "Secretary" establishing an exchange is not the same as or identical to the "State" establishing an exchange. The Secretary is one entity, a federal entity, and the State is a separate entity. If one entity, the State, fails to do X, then the Secretary will do X.

It is important to note, the statute does not contain the languge of, "The Secretary established exchanges for the State, and operated within the State, shall constitute as a State exchange." No such language exists in the statute. None. The statute discusses the "State" establishing exchanges, and in the event the "State" does not establish an exchange then the "Secretary" establishes an exchange.

In addition, the language of "establish and operate such Exchange within the State" is pivotal. The exchange is to be established by the Secretary "within" the State and the Secretary is to "operate" the exchange "within the State." The State isn't establishing or operating the exchange. Rather, the "Secretary" is establishing and operating the exchange. The State, under the law, has no operating control over the exchange established by the Secretary. Furthermore, the exchange is created and operated "within" the State. The word "within" gives the location and nothing more, the word "within" doesn't suggest the exchange is the State exchange. Given the fact the State does not have operational control over the exchange created by the "Secretary", the exchange is established by the "Secretary" and the exchange is merely, and nothing more, located "within" the State, it is inconceivable to think an exchange established and operated by the "Secretary" is a "State" exchange.

Quite simply, this isn't ambiguity, as the 4th Circuit said. This isn't ambiguous at all.

Not to you, but to 3 judges it was sufficient.

Yeah but the statutory language doesn't lie. Based on this language in the statute, those 3 judges have the weaker argument, and factually they have the inferior position.

As long as you look at it in the partisan bubble, you are correct. You want to get a microscope and judge the legislation on a by letter method. But determining legislative intent can easily go beyond the microscopic level.

We don't live in a partisan bubble. We have the people who wrote the legislation saying what it is supposed to mean. The legislation becomes nonsensical if it is assumed intent was meant to not have federal subsidies. The right-wing couldn't support their theory that it was ever intended to mean no Federal Subsidies with a single quote. Even dismal says the intent was quite clear to intend subsidies all around.

This case against the ACA smells a lot like those cases where that guy has "found a tax code loophole" and he doesn't have to pay taxes anymore. We know how that finishes up all the time.

 

[dismal]

We don't live in a partisan bubble.

Effin Christ Jimmy, in the non-partisan bubble of reality the law does not authorize credits on federal exchanges.

One must manufacture and reside deeply in a partisan bubble to imagine it does or simply not give a shit that it doesn't and hand them out anyway.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We don't live in a partisan bubble.

Effin Christ Jimmy, in the non-partisan bubble of reality the law does not authorize credits on federal exchanges.

Does the law say that Federal Exchanges must not have subsidies or are you just looking at the text of the law and concluding that maybe there is a possible loophole regarding the use of the word state that can help you in proving to yourself, that despite the sworn affidavits of those that actually passed the legislation, the legislation clearly and without doubt INTENDED not to subsidize federal exchange policies?

 

[ksen]

However I am sure you recall former house and majority leader Pelosi explaining to the hoi polloi that they had to pass the law in order to discover what was in it.

lol, yeah and now we're finding out that the intent was for all exchange participants to get subsidies if their income qualified them for subsidies.

When the majority leader who represents those who passed it says they don't know what they wrote and authorized, then regardless of ex post claims about their intentions are not only suspect but also beside the point - in statutory law words have commonly understood meaning. Regardless of what was allegedly intended by those who authored and/or approved them, or the lack of positive effects from willfully ignorant law making, the law's plain and unambiguous text has become the law (as well as the strongest direct evidence of actual intent).

And if the law was not plainly written, and truly too ambiguous to implement, it is Congress's duty (not the IRS) to provide clarity and correction. It is not acceptable for the majority to be passing laws that it has no idea of 'what's in it' and then expect the executive branch to rewrite it as it desires. We believe in democracy, correct?

Meh, what's Pelosi know? She's just a broad so she probably wasn't allowed in the room while the boys crafted the legislation.

 

[ksen]

Sooo . . . what does this mean?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And you're not allowed to consult any other sources except the words of the text.

 

[dismal]

Effin Christ Jimmy, in the non-partisan bubble of reality the law does not authorize credits on federal exchanges.

Does the law say that Federal Exchanges must not have subsidies or are you just looking at the text of the law and concluding that maybe there is a possible loophole regarding the use of the word state that can help you in proving to yourself, that despite the sworn affidavits of those that actually passed the legislation, the legislation clearly and without doubt INTENDED not to subsidize federal exchange policies?

Wow, more and more pathetic arguments. Would you attempt to argue the law does not say the government can't give me $1,000,000,00 so therefore the law says it can?

This isn't how it works. Expenditures must be authorized. There is no authorization of credits under federal exchanges in the law, any more than there is an authorization to give me $1,000,000,000.

 

[dismal]

However I am sure you recall former house and majority leader Pelosi explaining to the hoi polloi that they had to pass the law in order to discover what was in it.

lol, yeah and now we're finding out that the intent was for all exchange participants to get subsidies if their income qualified them for subsidies.

When the majority leader who represents those who passed it says they don't know what they wrote and authorized, then regardless of ex post claims about their intentions are not only suspect but also beside the point - in statutory law words have commonly understood meaning. Regardless of what was allegedly intended by those who authored and/or approved them, or the lack of positive effects from willfully ignorant law making, the law's plain and unambiguous text has become the law (as well as the strongest direct evidence of actual intent).

And if the law was not plainly written, and truly too ambiguous to implement, it is Congress's duty (not the IRS) to provide clarity and correction. It is not acceptable for the majority to be passing laws that it has no idea of 'what's in it' and then expect the executive branch to rewrite it as it desires. We believe in democracy, correct?

Meh, what's Pelosi know? She's just a broad so she probably wasn't allowed in the room while the boys crafted the legislation.

Since the law was produced entirely by the Senate, you actually made an accurate statement. First one in this thread, I think. Broken clock, twice a day, don't get cocky, yadda yadda.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does the law say that Federal Exchanges must not have subsidies or are you just looking at the text of the law and concluding that maybe there is a possible loophole regarding the use of the word state that can help you in proving to yourself, that despite the sworn affidavits of those that actually passed the legislation, the legislation clearly and without doubt INTENDED not to subsidize federal exchange policies?

Wow, more and more pathetic arguments. Would you attempt to argue the law does not say the government can't give me $1,000,000,00 so therefore the law says it can?

Of course not. On the other hand, it is likely that the bill does not have any language in any form that would seem to intend that such was the legislative intent. Also, judging that the legislation doesn't seem to intend in any manner of giving you $1 billion wouldn't indicate a conflicting overall intent of the legislation.

IE, your "analogy" lacks even the slightest bit of a parallel to the case at hand. So I suppose you are at least correct that you are tossing out more and more pathetic arguments.

 

[dismal]

Wow, more and more pathetic arguments. Would you attempt to argue the law does not say the government can't give me $1,000,000,00 so therefore the law says it can?

Of course not. On the other hand, it is likely that the bill does not have any language in any form that would seem to intend that such was the legislative intent. Also, judging that the legislation doesn't seem to intend in any manner of giving you $1 billion wouldn't indicate a conflicting overall intent of the legislation.

IE, your "analogy" lacks even the slightest bit of a parallel to the case at hand. So I suppose you are at least correct that you are tossing out more and more pathetic arguments.

Did you actually read any of the legal passages I posted?

Please do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course not. On the other hand, it is likely that the bill does not have any language in any form that would seem to intend that such was the legislative intent. Also, judging that the legislation doesn't seem to intend in any manner of giving you $1 billion wouldn't indicate a conflicting overall intent of the legislation.

IE, your "analogy" lacks even the slightest bit of a parallel to the case at hand. So I suppose you are at least correct that you are tossing out more and more pathetic arguments.

Did you actually read any of the legal passages I posted?

Please do.

Also, judging that the legislation doesn't seem to intend in any manner of giving you $1 billion wouldn't indicate a conflicting overall intent of the legislation.

 

[dismal]

Did you actually read any of the legal passages I posted?

Please do.

Also, judging that the legislation doesn't seem to intend in any manner of giving you $1 billion wouldn't indicate a conflicting overall intent of the legislation.

Read it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Intent is a valid and established by the Supreme Court method of interpreting laws.

Justice John Paul Stevens:

(1) "First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."

"If the Court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction of the statute . . . Rather,

(2) f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific question, the issue for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842–843 (1984).

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah but the statutory language doesn't lie.

That is not in dispute.

Based on this language in the statute, those 3 judges have the weaker argument, and factually they have the inferior position.

That is your opinion, not a fact. Your posted argument is based on parses and imputations of meaning, all of which are open to interpretation.

This will lead to the SCOTUS, and they will have the final say. Frankly, I find the argument that the ACA permits subsidies for some exchanges and not others to be unconvincing, because it makes no sense in terms of policy. None.

 

[James Madison]

I know what you mean. I mean look at what you said.

I don't really doubt they intended to throw about subsidies to everyone.

Yet, even when you know that, you still seem to want to argue against it. Do your partisan goggles come with lenses that aren't so dark? That may help you.

The pivotal language from the statute is as follows:

" [e]ach Stateshall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange."

Each State that elects...

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State-- (i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement--...
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State​

Emphasis mine.

First, it is important to observe the word "State" is capitalized and is preceded, in some places, with the word "each." This is important because this is a clear reference to the individual 50 states of the United States.

Now, the statutory language regarding exchanges established by the state reads as "Each State shall...establish an American Health Benefit Exchange," with subsequent language in the statute making clear the state may elect to establish an exchange with the language under section 1321 reading "Each State that elects..." to establish an exchange. (The is a constitutional reason for the change from "shall" to "elects".) Once again, this language is a clear reference to the states in their individual capacity. So, we have a clear understanding the law discusses State established exchanges.

Now, does the statute have a contingency plan in the event the State or States choose not to establish an exchange? Yes. What does this part of the statute say? I posted it above but repost again in italics. "[t]he Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State."

Who is doing the establishing of the exchange in the event the State does not establish an exchange? Is it the "State"? No, it is "the Secretary". The "Secretary" is not the "State." The statute treats them as different entities, different subjects, and we know this because in one section of the statute the "State" (capital "S") is used and elsewhere the word "Secretary" (capital "S") is used. The "Secretary" establishing an exchange is not the same as or identical to the "State" establishing an exchange. The Secretary is one entity, a federal entity, and the State is a separate entity. If one entity, the State, fails to do X, then the Secretary will do X.

It is important to note, the statute does not contain the languge of, "The Secretary established exchanges for the State, and operated within the State, shall constitute as a State exchange." No such language exists in the statute. None. The statute discusses the "State" establishing exchanges, and in the event the "State" does not establish an exchange then the "Secretary" establishes an exchange.

In addition, the language of "establish and operate such Exchange within the State" is pivotal. The exchange is to be established by the Secretary "within" the State and the Secretary is to "operate" the exchange "within the State." The State isn't establishing or operating the exchange. Rather, the "Secretary" is establishing and operating the exchange. The State, under the law, has no operating control over the exchange established by the Secretary. Furthermore, the exchange is created and operated "within" the State. The word "within" gives the location and nothing more, the word "within" doesn't suggest the exchange is the State exchange. Given the fact the State does not have operational control over the exchange created by the "Secretary", the exchange is established by the "Secretary" and the exchange is merely, and nothing more, located "within" the State, it is inconceivable to think an exchange established and operated by the "Secretary" is a "State" exchange.

Quite simply, this isn't ambiguity, as the 4th Circuit said. This isn't ambiguous at all.

Not to you, but to 3 judges it was sufficient.

Yeah but the statutory language doesn't lie. Based on this language in the statute, those 3 judges have the weaker argument, and factually they have the inferior position.

The legislation becomes nonsensical if it is assumed intent was meant to not have federal subsidies. The right-wing couldn't support their theory that it was ever intended to mean no Federal Subsidies with a single quote. Even dismal says the intent was quite clear to intend subsidies all around.

This case against the ACA smells a lot like those cases where that guy has "found a tax code loophole" and he doesn't have to pay taxes anymore. We know how that finishes up all the time.

As long as you look at it in the partisan bubble, you are correct.

This isn't very persuasive Jimmy as the same remark can be directed towards you and anyone else. However, such a retort doesn't refute my analysis. You have said absolutely nothing, in this retort, about my analysis of the language I cited from the statute.

You want to get a microscope and judge the legislation on a by letter method. But determining legislative intent can easily go beyond the microscopic level.

No, I am relying upon the plain text meaning, which in this instance is not ambiguous. Legislative intent isn't needed here because the plain, unambiguous text is sufficient to answer the legal issue. In this case the legislative intent was relied upon to ignore the plain unambiguous language of the statute, to not adhere to the plain unambiguous language of the statute, and instead impose another meaning onto the statute.

We don't live in a partisan bubble.

Who is "we"? I can tell you, society in the U.S., the legal field, Congress, all live within a "partisan bubble."

We have the people who wrote the legislation saying what it is supposed to mean.

No you have "some" of those people stating what they desired or intended but those few aren't determinative when a considerable number of other people voted in favor of the law and participated, in some capacity, in writing the legislation. But this is irrelevant because the unambiguous plain text is the law, not the hidden, unrevealed, and unknown intent of a few legislators (intent not known until a lawsuit is initiated and an investigation is conducted).

The legislation becomes nonsensical if it is assumed intent was meant to not have federal subsidies.

Yeah so? Congress may pass stupid laws, bad laws, laws which cannot practically work. There isn't any constitutional requirement laws enacted by Congress be ration, good laws, common sense laws. The law may be nonsensical but this is a dilemma the Congress, not the courts, must remedy.

The right-wing couldn't support their theory that it was ever intended to mean no Federal Subsidies with a single quote.

Why would they want to make such an argument? The fact is the plain unambiguous language of the statute doesn't authorize subsidies to exchanges established by the federal government. No need to focus upon or obsess over intent.

 

[James Madison]

That is not in dispute.

Based on this language in the statute, those 3 judges have the weaker argument, and factually they have the inferior position.

That is your opinion, not a fact. Your posted argument is based on parses and imputations of meaning, all of which are open to interpretation.

This will lead to the SCOTUS, and they will have the final say. Frankly, I find the argument that the ACA permits subsidies for some exchanges and not others to be unconvincing, because it makes no sense in terms of policy. None.

That is your opinion, not a fact. Your posted argument is based on parses and imputations of meaning, all of which are open to interpretation.

The statutory language, previously cited by me in this thread, is factual. The statutory language is a fact. The strength and weakness of an argument is, in part, contingent upon facts. The 4th Circuit's opinion isn't supported by the statutory language. How do I know? Because I have read the relevant parts of the statute and posted them here. The stronger argument is not the 4th Circuit's opinion, not because I said so, but because of the facts, i.e. the very language of the statute.

If someone, anyone, yourself, thinks for a moment the 4th Circuit's opinion is supported by the langauge of the statute, then I am most anxious and desirous to read such an argument. Especially since the 4th Circuit's opinion isn't supported by the language of the statute and I know this, and this is knowable, by referring to and examining the lanuage of the statute.

Frankly, I find the argument that the ACA permits subsidies for some exchanges and not others to be unconvincing, because it makes no sense in terms of policy. None

Statutes do not have to make sense. There is no constitutional requirement for a law to make sense, for a law to be a good law, for common sense to be inherent in the law, or for the law to be rational. Congress can, and has, passed bad laws, stupid laws, laws which make no sense at all. So the argument the law "makes no sense" quite simply is an argument that does not make sense as it rests upon the false assumption the law is to make sense and the law isn't permitted to "not make sense." The law can not make sense, the law can be stupid and irrational, and it is for the legislature to remedy and rectify stupid laws, bad laws, laws devoid of being rational.

 

[James Madison]

Intent is a valid and established by the Supreme Court method of interpreting laws.

Justice John Paul Stevens:

(1) "First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."

"If the Court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction of the statute . . . Rather,

(2) f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific question, the issue for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842–843 (1984).

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

Because Justive Stevens says so? Well, great! Wait, Justice A. Scalia disputes the notion of "intent" as a valid mode of interpretation. What is more relevant to this dialogue is whether intent is appropriate when and where the statute's plain language resolves the legal issue, i.e. no ambiguity in the plain language of the statute. I am aware of no U.S. Supreme Court case so holding in regards to the use of intent.