Page 35 of 37 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 366

Thread: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

  1. #341
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    They agreed 2 to 1 they are not. They simply stayed the decission.
    The only ruling with the force of law says that they are legal


    If you read the whole quote, you will see he is stating it is less then little chance. So, what's less then little chance? Regardless. It didn't have "a less then a little chance" of being adressed in a timely manner, because it was addressed in a timely manner. It even succeeded in the court, which according to him it had little chance of doing. Oops.
    less than little chance <> no chance

    Read it again.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #342
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I realize it's a biased source, but it makes the point pretty well that it is plausible... Especially when taking into account the medicaid expansion stick pointed at in the article and Gruber's statements regarding it.
    Even Gruber admits he was wrong

    Jonathan Gruber on Halbig: Says Quote on Exchanges Was a Mistake | New Republic
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #343
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,738

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    The court is required to defer to regulators over what the law states? That seems unlikely.
    No, you quoted an article that said the position of the plaintiffs - those suing to invalidate the IRS regulation allowing credits to federally run exchanges - was "plausible." That's clearly true. But "plausible" isn't definitive. If the plaintiffs' position was merely plausible, then the alternative (36B allows for credits on all exchanges) is also plausible. And when confronted with two plausible interpretations, the Court MUST defer to regulators' interpretation.

    And the part about HHS just moves the same question over to HHS. Was the interpretation by HHS that Congress intended, and a reading of the ACA as a whole indicated, that a qualified exchange included both state and federally assisted exchanges? If that position is merely plausible, then the Court has to side with HHS. So the court, to side with plaintiffs, has to find that the government's position was NOT EVEN PLAUSIBLE.

  4. #344
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,263

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Gruber said it on 2 different occasions.
    The guy must be prone to error.

  5. #345
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    The court is required to defer to regulators over what the law states? That seems unlikely. But, as quoted previously in this thread:
    It's called "The Chevron doctrine"

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../837/case.html

    When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. 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,

    Page 467 U. S. 843

    as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. [Footnote 9] If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, [Footnote 10] as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. [Footnote 11]

    "The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress."

    Morton v. Ruiz,415 U. S. 199, 415 U. S. 231 (1974). If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation

    Page 467 U. S. 844

    of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. [Footnote 12] Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit, rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency. [Footnote 13]

    We have long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department's construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, [Footnote 14] and the principle of deference to administrative interpretations

    "has been consistently followed by this Court whenever decision as to the meaning or reach of a statute has involved reconciling conflicting policies, and a full understanding of the force of the statutory policy in the given situation has depended upon more than ordinary knowledge respecting the matters subjected to agency regulations. See, e.g., National Broadcasting Co. v. United States,319 U. S. 190; Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.,322 U. S. 111; Republic Aviation Corp. v.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #346
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The only ruling with the force of law says that they are legal
    At least now you admit another court made a ruling that they are not legal. You are makign progress.

  7. #347
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    At least now you admit another court made a ruling that they are not legal. You are makign progress.
    It does not have the force of law. The ruling saying it is legal does have the force of law.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #348
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Yes, and you are more than happy to believe him despite him making the same "mistake" twice in two different speaches. We get it.

  9. #349
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    It does not have the force of law. The ruling saying it is legal does have the force of law.
    As you continue showing you have made progress. Yay!

  10. #350
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Yes, and you are more than happy to believe him despite him making the same "mistake" twice in two different speaches. We get it.
    You called him a liar, but you believe him when it he says something you like.

    You criticize policies you actually support, and you believe people you actually don't believe

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    As you continue showing you have made progress. Yay!
    I doubt you will even admit that your ruling does not have any force of law
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 35 of 37 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •