• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

buck said:
Really? you might want to talk it over with the DC court of appeals.
Click to expand...

That decision was not legally binding.

Try again

And again, please quote where I said that the courts wouldn't hear the case or admit that you lied
 
sangha said:
The court says you're wrong
Click to expand...

And another court said you are wrong. So here we are debating the validity of the two arguments. Are you capable of a salient argument for your side? I haven't seen one yet.

Also, can I take this as your concession on your HCERA argument?
 
jmotivator said:
And another court said you are wrong. So here we are debating the validity of the two arguments. Are you capable of a salient argument for your side? I haven't seen one yet.

Also, can I take this as your concession on your HCERA argument?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a "court" that said the subsidies are illegal. It was a panel of judges. The full court there has not yet had a trial
 
sangha said:
It wasn't a "court" that said the subsidies are illegal. It was a panel of judges. The full court there has not yet had a trial
Click to expand...

Oh geeze, are you really trying to argue the definition of "court" now? You do realize the three judges have standing, yes? They ruled on the case. The case can now either be appealed to the full circuit court or the SCOTUS, but they issued an enforceable court ruling, either way.
 
jmotivator said:
Oh geeze, are you really trying to argue the definition of "court" now? You do realize the three judges have standing, yes? They ruled on the case. The case can now either be appealed to the full circuit court or the SCOTUS, but they issued an enforceable court ruling, either way.
Click to expand...

Their conclusion has no legal force. It is not enforceable. Subsidies are still being given out on all exchanges.

The article even says so
The Obama administration said it will ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel's decision, which for now does not have the rule of law.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
And again, please quote where I said that the courts wouldn't hear the case or admit that you lied
Click to expand...

Please quote where I said you said that or admit you lied.
 
sangha said:
Their conclusion has no legal force. It is not enforceable. Subsidies are still being given out on all exchanges.
Click to expand...

They stayed it during appeal. It doesn't mean that the court didn't rule, though.
 
buck said:
They stayed it during appeal. It doesn't mean that the court didn't rule, though.
Click to expand...

Their conclusion has no legal force. It is not enforceable. Subsidies are still being given out on all exchanges.
 
sangha said:
Here

again, please quote where I said that the courts wouldn't hear the case or admit that you lied
Click to expand...

Again showing your lack of reading comprehension. Allow me to assist you:

the court did decide to hear the cases.. Despite your cites claim they wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Ready to admit you have reading comprehension problems yet? Or maybe that you lied? Either will be sufficient.
 
sangha said:
Their conclusion has no legal force. It is not enforceable. Subsidies are still being given out on all exchanges.
Click to expand...

Of course it has legal force. It was simply stayed during appeal.. Which is the proper action of the judges considering the situation.
 
buck said:
Again showing your lack of reading comprehension. Allow me to assist you:



Ready to admit you have reading comprehension problems yet? Or maybe that you lied? Either will be sufficient.
Click to expand...

buck said:
Of course it has legal force. It was simply stayed during appeal.. Which is the proper action of the judges considering the situation.
Click to expand...

it has no legal force
 
sangha said:
it has no legal force
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Regardless, it shows that the lawsuit did have a chance in the courts. Again, despite the claims that it wouldn't.

And I like how you accuse me of lying, only to ignore the facts that show what is really occurring.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
It is the intent of Congress that matters
Click to expand...

I know that is the argument, but the problem is that they didn't spell it out in the law. As far as I know when a court takes a look at the law, they rely heavily on the actual wording of the law to consider intent, or spirit. Although I can see what you are talking about concerning this, to be accurate, what they tried to do was to make it painful for any state to not set up an exchange, by withholding subsidies from the states citizenry if they didn't. The thought behind this was IMHO, that those republican states like my own SC, would experience a backlash from the citizens at the ballot box by blaming the extreme costs on those republican gov's, and legislatures...What they didn't count on was that they were not too bright in crafting the law, and left it open to a strict interpretation that just might be one of the lynch pins that undermines the entire law and collapses it.
 
j-mac said:
I know that is the argument, but the problem is that they didn't spell it out in the law. As far as I know when a court takes a look at the law, they rely heavily on the actual wording of the law to consider intent, or spirit. Although I can see what you are talking about concerning this, to be accurate, what they tried to do was to make it painful for any state to not set up an exchange, by withholding subsidies from the states citizenry if they didn't. The thought behind this was IMHO, that those republican states like my own SC, would experience a backlash from the citizens at the ballot box by blaming the extreme costs on those republican gov's, and legislatures...What they didn't count on was that they were not too bright in crafting the law, and left it open to a strict interpretation that just might be one of the lynch pins that undermines the entire law and collapses it.
Click to expand...

The problem is there is no evidence any state recognized that failing to set up their own exchange would cause this 'pain' that none of their residents would qualify for subsidies.
 
j-mac said:
I know that is the argument,
Click to expand...

It's not an argument; It's a fact

Only the intent of Congress matters

but the problem is that they didn't spell it out in the law. As far as I know when a court takes a look at the law, they rely heavily on the actual wording of the law to consider intent, or spirit. Although I can see what you are talking about concerning this, to be accurate, what they tried to do was to make it painful for any state to not set up an exchange, by withholding subsidies from the states citizenry if they didn't. The thought behind this was IMHO, that those republican states like my own SC, would experience a backlash from the citizens at the ballot box by blaming the extreme costs on those republican gov's, and legislatures...What they didn't count on was that they were not too bright in crafting the law, and left it open to a strict interpretation that just might be one of the lynch pins that undermines the entire law and collapses it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The law says when there's any ambiguity, the IRS can interpret the law. Your belief that there is a way to render a "strict interpretation" is contradicted by the fact that even you admit that there's ambiguity
 
sangha said:
Of course it doesn't.

Thats why all the exchanges are still handing out subsidies
Click to expand...

The court ruled against it and stayed their decision until further appeal. That doesn't mean that the court didn't rule against it. It doesn't mean that a court didn't make a decision. it also doesn't mean that they are not a court. Despite the claims form the cite you provided.
 
buck said:
The court ruled against it and stayed their decision until further appeal. That doesn't mean that the court didn't rule against it.
Click to expand...

It means it doesn't have the force of law, as I stated.

I'm right. You're wrong
 
sangha said:
It means it doesn't have the force of law, as I stated.

I'm right. You're wrong
Click to expand...

It means that the cite you provided has now been proven wrong a 2nd time. 1) the court did hear the case 2) the suit does have a chance in the courts. Add on to that, the cite's complete misunderstanding of the quotes.. and you picked a real winner.
 
buck said:
It means that the cite you provided has now been proven wrong a 2nd time. 1) the court did hear the case 2) the suit does have a chance in the courts. Add on to that, the cite's complete misunderstanding of the quotes.. and you picked a real winner.
Click to expand...

It was right that ACA allows subsidies in all exchanges which, in case you've forgotten, is the subject of this thread.

And no one said the courts would not hear the case.
 
JasperL said:
The problem is there is no evidence any state recognized that failing to set up their own exchange would cause this 'pain' that none of their residents would qualify for subsidies.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter what the states realizes or not. that is why they have people in the house and the senate to read through and make sure taht the bill that are generated are in their best interest.

their house reps and senators failed to read the bill as they wrote it.
 
sangha said:
It was right that ACA allows subsidies in all exchanges which, in case you've forgotten, is the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

Not according to one court, so far.

And no one said the courts would not hear the case.
Click to expand...

You have already been proven wrong on this.
 
sangha said:
It does not have the force of law. The ruling that they are legal does have the force of law.
Click to expand...

A court ruled against the subsidies. The decision was stayed during appeal.

No, I haven't. It's not my fault you failed to comprehend the quote.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are one to speak of comprehension issues.

As quoted "and even less chance of being addressed by the courts anytime in the near future because of jurisdictional problems"... As the case is addressed soon after. Oops.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom