Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Suit

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could you please act like an adult

Does acting like an adult mean interjecting with an irrelevant and bitter diatribe about engineers as you did about lawyers in a prior post? No, I didn't think so.

Sure it is. That is a professional reality. Hypertextualism costs municipalities millions of dollars and lots of lost time in construction. The rule for engineering is that in Law it doesn't matter who is right, but simply who wins.

Adults look at the meaning of words, in this instance the ACA defines the word "State" in such a manner as to not include Secretary of Health. What does this mean? Well this means the word "State" does not mean "Secretary of Health" in the ACA. What does this mean? This necessarily means an exchange "established by the State" cannot possibly mean or include an exchange "established by the Secretary of Health." How do we know this to be true? Because the meaning of the word "State" doesn't include "Secretary of Health." Simple analysis, you know, the kind of analysis we expect from people behaving like adults.

So you seem to be incapable of answering the reasonable question. If there are no separate regulations establishing what an Exchange established by the Secretary of State, that can be reasonably taken to mean there is only one type of Exchange... the 1311 Exchange. And that would mean 1321 authorizes the creation of a 1311 Exchange and "by the State" has to carry a broader meaning. The definition may be written in stone, but if the text makes a substantial part of the law nonsensical, then there is room for interpretation.

 

[dismal]

Adults look at the meaning of words, in this instance the ACA defines the word "State" in such a manner as to not include Secretary of Health. What does this mean? Well this means the word "State" does not mean "Secretary of Health" in the ACA. What does this mean? This necessarily means an exchange "established by the State" cannot possibly mean or include an exchange "established by the Secretary of Health." How do we know this to be true? Because the meaning of the word "State" doesn't include "Secretary of Health." Simple analysis, you know, the kind of analysis we expect from people behaving like adults.

But simple reading using conventional English does not produce the preferred answer. So we must squint, strain, imagine and distort.

 

[James Madison]

Does acting like an adult mean interjecting with an irrelevant and bitter diatribe about engineers as you did about lawyers in a prior post? No, I didn't think so.

Adults look at the meaning of words, in this instance the ACA defines the word "State" in such a manner as to not include Secretary of Health. What does this mean? Well this means the word "State" does not mean "Secretary of Health" in the ACA. What does this mean? This necessarily means an exchange "established by the State" cannot possibly mean or include an exchange "established by the Secretary of Health." How do we know this to be true? Because the meaning of the word "State" doesn't include "Secretary of Health." Simple analysis, you know, the kind of analysis we expect from people behaving like adults.

If there are no separate regulations establishing what an Exchange established by the Secretary of State, that can be reasonably taken to mean there is only one type of Exchange... the 1311 Exchange. And that would mean 1321 authorizes the creation of a 1311 Exchange and "by the State" has to carry a broader meaning. The definition may be written in stone, but if the text makes a substantial part of the law nonsensical, then there is room for interpretation.

No, there isn't any room for interpretation because the ACA defines "State" in a particular manner. The fact other parts of the law are rendered non-sensical does not change the statutory definition of "State." Rather, the result is a statute with non-sensical provisions, which the legislature is perfectly entitled to write, pass, and enact. Furthermore, it isn't the proper job or role of the judiciary to fix a non-sense statute but it is the proper role of the legislature to fix a non-sensical statute.

 

[RVonse]

It just occurred to me that if Dismal and Max are correct about what the supreme court must do here, then that then opens up another can of worms for violating the equal protection claus of the 14th amendment of the constitution. Sabine Grant will be unfairly discriminated against solely on the basis of living in Florida and not some other state in the United States. You can not preserve a union and have individual states treat people differently.

That is unlikely because the Equal Protection clause applies to Race, National Origin, Sex, and (increasingly) Sexual Orientation. Federal policy can (and has) had lots of disparate impact on individuals in States. For example, there is nothing illegal in PPACA's "special" provisions to send extra funds to Nebraska in return for Ben Nelson's vote.

Funds for Ben Nelson is one thing. But when people like Sabine above start dying earlier than normal (and can prove the same) because of unequal federal medical treatment that is the very definition of unequal protection on the 13th amendment. Won't matter if Sabine is black, white, hispanic, yellow, or purple, her life expectancy will be directly impacted by reason that she lives in Florida instead of California which are both part of our union.

Congress made flawed software because they did not read the law or work out the possible angles for a virus before they signed it into action. Now that their enemies have discovered a successful port of entry for their virus attack they want help from the supreme court. So as bad as congress not proofreading their own law, the supreme court is prevailing with even more stupidity by helping out the virus (instead of the software).

If the supreme court succeeds in its partisan efforts, what do you think will happen? People like Sabine are going to start dying and they will force the federal government to force all states to have exchanges. And that will be a very bad thing for this country IMO. The states already have too little power IMO.

All because of partisan hacks on the supreme court bench who want to be dictators instead of judges!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Adults look at the meaning of words, in this instance the ACA defines the word "State" in such a manner as to not include Secretary of Health. What does this mean? Well this means the word "State" does not mean "Secretary of Health" in the ACA. What does this mean? This necessarily means an exchange "established by the State" cannot possibly mean or include an exchange "established by the Secretary of Health." How do we know this to be true? Because the meaning of the word "State" doesn't include "Secretary of Health." Simple analysis, you know, the kind of analysis we expect from people behaving like adults.

If there are no separate regulations establishing what an Exchange established by the Secretary of State, that can be reasonably taken to mean there is only one type of Exchange... the 1311 Exchange. And that would mean 1321 authorizes the creation of a 1311 Exchange and "by the State" has to carry a broader meaning. The definition may be written in stone, but if the text makes a substantial part of the law nonsensical, then there is room for interpretation.

No, there isn't any room for interpretation because the ACA defines "State" in a particular manner. The fact other parts of the law are rendered non-sensical does not change the statutory definition of "State."

Out of curiosity, because you won't address the question I've asked twice, what is extraconstitutional here? Just the subsidy or the Federally run Exchanges as well, because no person can be a resident of the State of the US as the US isn't a state?

 

[dismal]

Out of curiosity, because you won't address the question I've asked twice, what is extraconstitutional here? Just the subsidy or the Federally run Exchanges as well, because no person can be a resident of the State of the US as the US isn't a state?

This not a question of the Constitution. It's a question of statutory interpretation.

 

[Togo]

Out of curiosity, because you won't address the question I've asked twice, what is extraconstitutional here? Just the subsidy or the Federally run Exchanges as well, because no person can be a resident of the State of the US as the US isn't a state?

This not a question of the Constitution. It's a question of statutory interpretation.

By the time it gets to the Supreme court it's matter of politics, intent, clarity and outcome as much as statute. I don't know enough about US politics to know whether the Supreme Court would strip hundreds of thousands of Americans of their healthcare on a technicality, but I suspect not. And robbing the law of any effect due to the way it was worded seems equally unlikely unless it was based on a Constitutional Principle, because it would put the Supreme Court in the position of overruling the will of both legislature and executive simultaneously. Absent of some constitutional principle, it seems more likely you'll end up with mandatory exchanges.

To be honest I'm finding this whole discussion hard to fathom. Interpreting laws is difficult, and they can often seem contradictory unless you're used to them. I just find it hard to move from that to the idea that the Supreme court would torpedo the US healthcare system over poor wording, just to please the political enemies of the president. Is that really how it works over there? Because poorly worded laws are not exactly unusual...

 

[James Madison]

Adults look at the meaning of words, in this instance the ACA defines the word "State" in such a manner as to not include Secretary of Health. What does this mean? Well this means the word "State" does not mean "Secretary of Health" in the ACA. What does this mean? This necessarily means an exchange "established by the State" cannot possibly mean or include an exchange "established by the Secretary of Health." How do we know this to be true? Because the meaning of the word "State" doesn't include "Secretary of Health." Simple analysis, you know, the kind of analysis we expect from people behaving like adults.

If there are no separate regulations establishing what an Exchange established by the Secretary of State, that can be reasonably taken to mean there is only one type of Exchange... the 1311 Exchange. And that would mean 1321 authorizes the creation of a 1311 Exchange and "by the State" has to carry a broader meaning. The definition may be written in stone, but if the text makes a substantial part of the law nonsensical, then there is room for interpretation.

No, there isn't any room for interpretation because the ACA defines "State" in a particular manner. The fact other parts of the law are rendered non-sensical does not change the statutory definition of "State."

Out of curiosity, because you won't address the question I've asked twice, what is extraconstitutional here? Just the subsidy or the Federally run Exchanges as well, because no person can be a resident of the State of the US as the US isn't a state?

This isn't a question of constitutionality but one of statutory interpretation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Adults look at the meaning of words, in this instance the ACA defines the word "State" in such a manner as to not include Secretary of Health. What does this mean? Well this means the word "State" does not mean "Secretary of Health" in the ACA. What does this mean? This necessarily means an exchange "established by the State" cannot possibly mean or include an exchange "established by the Secretary of Health." How do we know this to be true? Because the meaning of the word "State" doesn't include "Secretary of Health." Simple analysis, you know, the kind of analysis we expect from people behaving like adults.

If there are no separate regulations establishing what an Exchange established by the Secretary of State, that can be reasonably taken to mean there is only one type of Exchange... the 1311 Exchange. And that would mean 1321 authorizes the creation of a 1311 Exchange and "by the State" has to carry a broader meaning. The definition may be written in stone, but if the text makes a substantial part of the law nonsensical, then there is room for interpretation.

No, there isn't any room for interpretation because the ACA defines "State" in a particular manner. The fact other parts of the law are rendered non-sensical does not change the statutory definition of "State."

Out of curiosity, because you won't address the question I've asked twice, what is extraconstitutional here? Just the subsidy or the Federally run Exchanges as well, because no person can be a resident of the State of the US as the US isn't a state?

This isn't a question of constitutionality but one of statutory interpretation.

I appreciate nitpicks and all, but can you answer the general context of my question? What do you think goes away?

 

[James Madison]

Adults look at the meaning of words, in this instance the ACA defines the word "State" in such a manner as to not include Secretary of Health. What does this mean? Well this means the word "State" does not mean "Secretary of Health" in the ACA. What does this mean? This necessarily means an exchange "established by the State" cannot possibly mean or include an exchange "established by the Secretary of Health." How do we know this to be true? Because the meaning of the word "State" doesn't include "Secretary of Health." Simple analysis, you know, the kind of analysis we expect from people behaving like adults.

If there are no separate regulations establishing what an Exchange established by the Secretary of State, that can be reasonably taken to mean there is only one type of Exchange... the 1311 Exchange. And that would mean 1321 authorizes the creation of a 1311 Exchange and "by the State" has to carry a broader meaning. The definition may be written in stone, but if the text makes a substantial part of the law nonsensical, then there is room for interpretation.

No, there isn't any room for interpretation because the ACA defines "State" in a particular manner. The fact other parts of the law are rendered non-sensical does not change the statutory definition of "State."

Out of curiosity, because you won't address the question I've asked twice, what is extraconstitutional here? Just the subsidy or the Federally run Exchanges as well, because no person can be a resident of the State of the US as the US isn't a state?

This isn't a question of constitutionality but one of statutory interpretation.

I appreciate nitpicks and all, but can you answer the general context of my question? What do you think goes away?

The subsidy for exchanges "established by the Secretary of Health." The statute states subsidies are for exchanges "established by the State."

 

[Horatio Parker]

This not a question of the Constitution. It's a question of statutory interpretation.

By the time it gets to the Supreme court it's matter of politics, intent, clarity and outcome as much as statute. I don't know enough about US politics to know whether the Supreme Court would strip hundreds of thousands of Americans of their healthcare on a technicality, but I suspect not. And robbing the law of any effect due to the way it was worded seems equally unlikely unless it was based on a Constitutional Principle, because it would put the Supreme Court in the position of overruling the will of both legislature and executive simultaneously. Absent of some constitutional principle, it seems more likely you'll end up with mandatory exchanges.

To be honest I'm finding this whole discussion hard to fathom. Interpreting laws is difficult, and they can often seem contradictory unless you're used to them. I just find it hard to move from that to the idea that the Supreme court would torpedo the US healthcare system over poor wording, just to please the political enemies of the president. Is that really how it works over there? Because poorly worded laws are not exactly unusual...

I wonder what effect this will have on the court. This guy Cannon is telling everybody there's no way the conservative justices will vote against his case. Are the justices to take their marching orders from Cato & Co? Maybe Roger Ailes will come up with some ruling ideas for them.

 

[James Madison]

By the time it gets to the Supreme court it's matter of politics, intent, clarity and outcome as much as statute. I don't know enough about US politics to know whether the Supreme Court would strip hundreds of thousands of Americans of their healthcare on a technicality, but I suspect not. And robbing the law of any effect due to the way it was worded seems equally unlikely unless it was based on a Constitutional Principle, because it would put the Supreme Court in the position of overruling the will of both legislature and executive simultaneously. Absent of some constitutional principle, it seems more likely you'll end up with mandatory exchanges.

To be honest I'm finding this whole discussion hard to fathom. Interpreting laws is difficult, and they can often seem contradictory unless you're used to them. I just find it hard to move from that to the idea that the Supreme court would torpedo the US healthcare system over poor wording, just to please the political enemies of the president. Is that really how it works over there? Because poorly worded laws are not exactly unusual...

I wonder what effect this will have on the court. This guy Cannon is telling everybody there's no way the conservative justices will vote against his case. Are the justices to take their marching orders from Cato & Co? Maybe Roger Ailes will come up with some ruling ideas for them.

I think it is very likely 4 of them will vote against the subsidies, perhaps the same 4 which dissented when Roberts wrote the opinion declaring the mandate and its penalty as a constitutional exercise of congressional power. It is perhaps easier for them to vote against the subsidies as doing so will not kill the entire legislation. The question is whether Roberts goes along with them.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I've read a few takes. One, gay marriage is also before the court this term, so Roberts can get both liberal and conservative creds. Another says that Roberts is pro- business, and with the insurance companies and hospitals lining up against the suit, he'll respond accordingly. A third, advanced by John Yoo, is that this is an opportunity for Roberts to atone for his prior sins.

 

[James Madison]

I've read a few takes. One, gay marriage is also before the court this term, so Roberts can get both liberal and conservative creds. Another says that Roberts is pro- business, and with the insurance companies and hospitals lining up against the suit, he'll respond accordingly. A third, advanced by John Yoo, is that this is an opportunity for Roberts to atone for his prior sins.

I would venture a guess Roberts will be the 5th and deciding vote and he'll pull a little magic act, like he did in NFIB v Sebelius, and find a way to preserve the subsidies.

 

[dismal]

I've read a few takes. One, gay marriage is also before the court this term, so Roberts can get both liberal and conservative creds. Another says that Roberts is pro- business, and with the insurance companies and hospitals lining up against the suit, he'll respond accordingly. A third, advanced by John Yoo, is that this is an opportunity for Roberts to atone for his prior sins.

I would venture a guess Roberts will be the 5th and deciding vote and he'll pull a little magic act, like he did in NFIB v Sebelius, and find a way to preserve the subsidies.

As I said at the beginning, the issues and precedents are straightforward enough that I would not be surprised if one or more of the "liberal" justices comes over and the law is upheld by 6-3 or even 7-2. I think that if Roberts is going to vote to uphold he will spend a lot of effort trying to bring one of them along for the benefit of the court. I imagine at least one of them may not be able to hold their nose and vote like a political whore instead of a judge if they understand they will lose anyway.

Note it is also incorrect to say upholding the law would "do away with the subsidies". The subsidies still exist, the states just have to cave to the Gruberian pressure and set up exchanges if they want them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The subsidy for exchanges "established by the Secretary of Health." The statute states subsidies are for exchanges "established by the State."

That all? What about federally started Exchanges as a whole? A qualified individual has to reside in the State that established the Exchange. How can a person even be qualified to be in an Exchange started by the Secretary of Health when the Secretary of Health isn't a State?

 

[maxparrish]

The subsidy for exchanges "established by the Secretary of Health." The statute states subsidies are for exchanges "established by the State."

That all? What about federally started Exchanges as a whole? A qualified individual has to reside in the State that established the Exchange. How can a person even be qualified to be in an Exchange started by the Secretary of Health when the Secretary of Health isn't a State?

You must be channeling Gluck, no? And I suppose you are basing this on her argument:

Section 1312(f) provides that only “qualified individuals” can purchase on an Exchange but defines a qualified individual as one who “resides in the State that established the Exchange.” Failure to understand a federally operated exchange as the legal equivalent of a state exchange would mean that federal exchanges have no customers.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/s...-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/

If so, have you familiarized yourself with rebuttals to that argument?

 

[ksen]

you guys are really excited about a bunch of red staters losing their insurance

 

[James Madison]

you guys are really excited about a bunch of red staters losing their insurance

I think it's more profound and nuanced than you present it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That all? What about federally started Exchanges as a whole? A qualified individual has to reside in the State that established the Exchange. How can a person even be qualified to be in an Exchange started by the Secretary of Health when the Secretary of Health isn't a State?

You must be channeling Gluck, no? And I suppose you are basing this on her argument:

Section 1312(f) provides that only “qualified individuals” can purchase on an Exchange but defines a qualified individual as one who “resides in the State that established the Exchange.” Failure to understand a federally operated exchange as the legal equivalent of a state exchange would mean that federal exchanges have no customers.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/s...-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/

If so, have you familiarized yourself with rebuttals to that argument?

Is this the new type of rebuttal? The rebuttal by saying there is a rebuttal, but not providing one?