Federal Court strikes at the heart of ACA

[KeithKSR]

The I.rS written regulation that allowed people signing up on the federal ACA website to receive subsidies has been struck down. Only people signing up through state exchanges can receive subsidies.

My first blush take was that this could lead to the entirety of ACA being struck down due to a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Denying people who live in states that use the federal exchange instead of a state exchange is definitely unequal treatment.

[suncat05]

But the law still stands in its original form, and even if the Senate does change to Republican control, there still will not be enough votes available to overturn it. Unless some Dem Senators decide to vote for repeal, but that isn't likely.
So the lousy law still will stand, and it will continue to destroy the economy, and jobs, and the futures of us all.

[KeithKSR]

But the law still stands in its original form, and even if the Senate does change to Republican control, there still will not be enough votes available to overturn it. Unless some Dem Senators decide to vote for repeal, but that isn't likely.
So the lousy law still will stand, and it will continue to destroy the economy, and jobs, and the futures of us all.

The ruling drastically changes the ACA regulations, cutting subsidies to most who receive them. Once that imbalance exists it could be argued the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause has been violated, which could nullify the act.

[suncat05]

I understand that. However, it will still be federal law, and adherence is therefore mandatory. Some provisions of the law will still be in play, while other parts will not be. So how does a law that's only partly viable work to everyone's benefit? It won't. It can't.
I suppose the only way to kill it then is to totally defund it. But it will still be on the books. And "the man who would be king" still has his signature piece of legislation in place to destroy, hinder, hamper, and otherwise hurt America & Americans in all walks of life.
Meanwhile, Congress still won't fix the problem that they created by passing a bill that the American people told them they didn't want.

[Doc]

I understand that. However, it will still be federal law, and adherence is therefore mandatory. Some provisions of the law will still be in play, while other parts will not be. So how does a law that's only partly viable work to everyone's benefit? It won't. It can't.
I suppose the only way to kill it then is to totally defund it. But it will still be on the books. And "the man who would be king" still has his signature piece of legislation in place to destroy, hinder, hamper, and otherwise hurt America & Americans in all walks of life.
Meanwhile, Congress still won't fix the problem that they created by passing a bill that the American people told them they didn't want.


The fix is simple. The NEXT president follows the precedent that this president set. You simply execute an executive order that over-rides the law. See the current president has established that he is ruler and king, that the laws established by congress are really just suggestions that if they don't fit the presidents whims then he and he alone has the power to alter or ignore those laws he does not like. Don't like the laws of immigration? Grant amnesty. Don't like how YOUR healthcare law is implemented? Grant waivers. Don't want congressional approval for your appointees? Do it during recess. So when the next president is elected, all they have to do is write an executive order that says ignore that POS law

[KeithKSR]

I understand that. However, it will still be federal law, and adherence is therefore mandatory. Some provisions of the law will still be in play, while other parts will not be. So how does a law that's only partly viable work to everyone's benefit? It won't. It can't.
I suppose the only way to kill it then is to totally defund it. But it will still be on the books. And "the man who would be king" still has his signature piece of legislation in place to destroy, hinder, hamper, and otherwise hurt America & Americans in all walks of life.
Meanwhile, Congress still won't fix the problem that they created by passing a bill that the American people told them they didn't want.

Overturned federal laws are no longer laws.

[suncat05]

Overturned federal laws are no longer laws.

Unless a few Dems decide to cross the aisle in the Senate, then the law is still in place and has to be adhered to. The only option to stopping implementation is repeal. And that will not happen. There's not enough intestinal fortitude in all of Congress to do what's right by the American people.
Look, we're still going to have to somehow work around the stupidity of "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill". But she's an idiot politician so that is about as good as we'll ever get from her idiot piehole.But what we're dealing with now is exactly what happens when Congress makes deals in the middle of the night, and then does not READ the damn bill that has been written. THAT IS PURE B.S.!! And that is NOT how the Founding Fathers intended it to be done.
JMHO. That's just how I see it.

[KSRBEvans]

IMHO this ruling is likely to be overturned by the DC Circuit, which will probably hear it en banc and has a liberal bent.

Which means it will ultimately end up with the Supremes for a decision. Remember how Chief Justice Roberts contorted himself to reach a decision upholding ACA. I expect much the same with this.

[suncat05]

IMHO this ruling is likely to be overturned by the DC Circuit, which will probably hear it en banc and has a liberal bent.

Which means it will ultimately end up with the Supremes for a decision. Remember how Chief Justice Roberts contorted himself to reach a decision upholding ACA. I expect much the same with this.

I am not a lawyer. But even I know this law is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts is more worried about his "legacy", such as it will be, than correctly interpreting an unconstitutional law. As far as I'm concerned, he is a traitor to the American people. It's really hard to respect someone who is afraid to live up to his responsibility as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Either it's legal or it isn't. Wimping out and calling it a "tax" was taking the easy way out and just passing the buck.

[KeithKSR]

IMHO this ruling is likely to be overturned by the DC Circuit, which will probably hear it en banc and has a liberal bent.

Which means it will ultimately end up with the Supremes for a decision. Remember how Chief Justice Roberts contorted himself to reach a decision upholding ACA. I expect much the same with this.

It is hard to judge how SCOTUS would rule, they smacked Obama on overreach issues several times. At the time the intention of the Dems was to strong arm states into creating exchanges by limiting subsidies to state exchanges, that strong arm attempt could be what brings ACA down.

[dan_bgblue]

The courts should have a blast sorting this out.

US Territories get a "get out of jail free" card (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/obamacare-free-getaway-for-5-us-territories/)

[KeithKSR]

But late last week, Tavenner sent a letter to the governments of those same five territories exempting their individual health insurance markets from virtually all the major remaining provisions. She said that after a "careful review," the department determined the definition of "state" actually means "these new provisions do not apply to the territories."

The definition of "state" could be their undoing.