View Poll Results: Predicting the final verdict of the supreme court

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 6-3 in favor of the law

    79 54.86%
  • 5-4 in favor of the law

    48 33.33%
  • 5-4 againist the law

    6 4.17%
  • 6-3 againist the law

    2 1.39%
  • Some other combination.

    9 6.25%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

  1. #11
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I detect the characteristic overheated tone of someone who is worried about the outcome.
    In that the consequences would be significant if it went the wrong way, yes I am worried. A lot of people would be stripped of their healthcare merely because they live in a state ruled by conservatives. I worry about all the damage that your side does to this country.

    I am not, however, worried in the sense that I think it's a likely outcome. As I said, the case is nonsense. And every judge who has actually ruled on it agrees.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #12
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Personally, I see no reason for the court to uphold ambiguous language. They should rule as the law is written. If congress wants to rewrite the law, they can. The SC should not be fixing it or deciding what they think congress meant or what congress should have written in hindsight. The 4 liberal justices will vote in lock step in support of the law of course and the conservatives likely against it. Chances are it comes down to Roberts and/or Kennedy and I have given up guessing how either of them will vote on things. I hope they rule against it, but probably wont, so 5-4 in support.
    Chief Justice Roberts doesn't want the legacy that his court killed it. I think Kennedy will vote with Roberts.


  3. #13
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,563

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    9-0 in favor of the law.

    PPACA is not up for scrutiny. IRS regulation is.

    The Supreme Court will rule if Congress intended that the Federal government give subsidies after the states did not set up the exchanges and whether Congress intended that the subsides be given by either the state or the federal government.

    the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 that Congress did intend that low income residents receive the subsidies whether it was the state or the federal government that set up and managed the exchanges.

    The Supreme Court will side with me in saying that it makes no freaking sense that Congress should want subsidies for low income persons in states where the state set up the exchange...but not in states where the state did not. No freaking sense.
    That is quite an assumption considering that the SCOTUS initially decided exactly the opposite when the Medicaid expansion "sticks" language was stricken for states "opting out" of that mess. The intent was (and is) clear - states that played along with federal PPACA wishes would get the federal carrots and those states that did not would get the federal sticks (or at least get no federal carrots). Additionally the small business mandate was coupled closely with state exchanges (via SHOP) - the federal exchange never addressed that, thus the delay in the small employer mandate implementation.

    http://www.acscan.org/pdf/healthcare...onsProgram.pdf
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #14
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,842

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    I didn't answer the poll because there is no way for me to predict what those nine people will do.

    But, if those nine people care at all about the letter of the law then the ruling can only be 9-0 against the IRS.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  5. #15
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    In that the consequences would be significant if it went the wrong way, yes I am worried. A lot of people would be stripped of their healthcare merely because they live in a state ruled by conservatives. I worry about all the damage that your side does to this country.
    LOL. What damage? Sorry that vast swaths of this country don't like your statist crap imposed upon them. The truth is, if you can bear to hear it, is that it is your side, with its ideology of theft and force, that is destroying this country. If you want a free ride, move back in with mommy and daddy. Don't force your neighbors to fund your socialist fantasies.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Chief Justice Roberts doesn't want the legacy that his court killed it. I think Kennedy will vote with Roberts.
    It wouldn't kill it. Congress can simply rewrite that section of the law. That the congress has changed hands and WONT rewrite it is not the fault of the SC, but due to voters who threw out the liberals who come up with this monstrosity in the first place.

  7. #17
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,852

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    I personally think it will be 5-4 against promulgating regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government and it will cause ACA to fold. The bill is poorly written. We have a president every other week unconstitutionally legislating from the Executive branch making changes in the law because of it and he will continue to do so each and every time another problem arises. Having said that, Kennedy has concerns of the repercussions of those who have purchased their health insurance through exchanges in states that do not have their own exchanges. Have no idea how they will address that one.

  8. #18
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,068

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    This is only about predicting the number of judges who will vote to uphold governments position or will go along with the plantiffs arguements againist the affordable care act.

    The choices are

    5-4 uphold the law

    5-4 rule againist the law

    6-3 in favor of the law

    6-3 againist

    Or some other combination.
    Almost no chance the SCOTUS strikes down this provision of this law. The argument is weak, contrary to the intent of the law and the consequences of overturning the provisions would be drastic. I surprised it was even heard.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Personally, I see no reason for the court to uphold ambiguous language. They should rule as the law is written. If congress wants to rewrite the law, they can. The SC should not be fixing it or deciding what they think congress meant or what congress should have written in hindsight. The 4 liberal justices will vote in lock step in support of the law of course and the conservatives likely against it. Chances are it comes down to Roberts and/or Kennedy and I have given up guessing how either of them will vote on things. I hope they rule against it, but probably wont, so 5-4 in support.
    I agree. They should take the law as they find it. Out of respect for the Constitution's separation of powers, the justices should not take it upon themselves to put words into the mouth of Congress.

    On a related note, I would like to see the impeachment of Supreme Court justices taken seriously again. Only one has ever been impeached (he escaped conviction in the Senate trial) and the consensus seems to be that that was a one-time thing from Jefferson's day that is unthinkable today. But why the hell shouldn't it be?

    The people of the states are the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, despite the Court's long campaign to arrogate that authority entirely to itself. Aside from impeaching justices, there are several other ways for the other two branches to nullify the effect of Supreme Court decisions. None of this things should ever be done lightly, but that does not mean they should never be done. Recall, for example, that President Lincoln just declined to enforce parts of the Dred Scott decision. If we the people don't like something, we don't have to live with it.

    Congress was always meant to be the most powerful of the three branches of the federal government. Anyone who thinks Congress can't tell the Supreme Court what to do, when the will of the people is strong enough, should read Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869). Congress passed a law that stripped the Court of jurisdiction to decide the McCardle case after it had already heard oral arguments. The Court said this in concluding its opinion:

    "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause . . . ."

    Congress's power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is the key to McCardle:

    "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." U.S.C. Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Personally, I see no reason for the court to uphold ambiguous language. They should rule as the law is written. If congress wants to rewrite the law, they can. The SC should not be fixing it or deciding what they think congress meant or what congress should have written in hindsight. The 4 liberal justices will vote in lock step in support of the law of course and the conservatives likely against it. Chances are it comes down to Roberts and/or Kennedy and I have given up guessing how either of them will vote on things. I hope they rule against it, but probably wont, so 5-4 in support.
    I agree. They should take the law as they find it. Out of respect for the Constitution's separation of powers, the justices should not take it upon themselves to put words into the mouth of Congress.

    On a related note, I would like to see the impeachment of Supreme Court justices taken seriously again. Only one has ever been impeached (he escaped conviction in the Senate trial) and the consensus seems to be that that was a one-time thing from Jefferson's day that is unthinkable today. But why the hell shouldn't it be thinkable?

    The people of the states are the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, despite the Court's long campaign to arrogate that authority entirely to itself. Aside from impeaching justices, there are several other ways for the other two branches to nullify the effect of Supreme Court decisions. None of these things should ever be done lightly, but that does not mean they should never be done. Recall, for example, that President Lincoln just declined to enforce parts of the Dred Scott decision. If we the people don't like something, we don't have to live with it.

    Here is another way the Court may be checked. Congress was always meant to be the most powerful of the three branches of the federal government. When the will of the people is strong enough, their representatives in Congress can dictate to the Supreme Court what it may and may not do. A good example is Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869).

    In 1867, Congress had passed a law that authorized people who had been imprisoned to file habeas petitions to challenge their detention, and if denied by the court being petitioned to appeal the denial to the Supreme Court. The purpose of this law was to help Northerners who had been imprisoned by the Confederacy, and were still languishing in captivity in the South, to obtain their freedom.

    McCardle, a pro-Confederate journalist the army had imprisoned for publishing seditious articles, had used this law cleverly. He had filed a habeas petition challenging his imprisonment, been denied by the lower courts, and then appealed the denial to the Supreme Court. But an outraged Congress, seeing reb sympathizer McCardle taking advantage of a law it never meant to help the likes of him, was determined to put an end to that.

    So it rushed through another act repealing the first one--after the Court had already heard oral arguments in McCardle's case. This repealer act had the intended effect, which was to remove the jurisdiction to hear these appeals of habeas denials that the 1867 law had given the Supreme Court. The Court dropped the case, concluding its opinion with this meek observation:

    "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause . . . ."

    It's not clear how broadly McCardle can be interpreted, but it shows how forcefully a determined Congress can exercise its power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.

    "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." U.S.C. Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •