• 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 judge sympathetic to lawsuit to end Obamacare

Greenbeard

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
26,105
Reaction score
33,641
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
On the same day that new polling shows that "three-quarters of Americans want to preserve key protections in the Affordable Care Act that bar health insurers from turning away sick customers" and a SCOTUS nominee dodged questions on whether he would uphold the ban on pre-existing conditions, the GOP's quest to bring back pre-existing conditions kicked into high gear. And absurd as their legal argument is, they've started off with a friendly judge.

Federal judge sympathetic to lawsuit to end Obamacare
A federal judge appeared to be sympathetic to the legal argument used by 20 states to make the case for striking down Obamacare’s pre-existing condition protections during a critical hearing on Wednesday, according to a report.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor presided over the hearing Wednesday in Fort Worth, Texas on the lawsuit brought by Texas and 19 other states. The hearing was on a preliminary injunction to halt federal enforcement of the law while the lawsuit makes its way through the courts. If O’Connor grants it, insurers would no longer be required to include protections for people with pre-existing conditions in Obamacare plans.
Click to expand...
The crux of Texas’ lawsuit is that Obamacare cannot stand because the individual mandate’s financial penalty will be zeroed out starting in 2019.
Click to expand...
The law says that the mandate is essential to creating an "effective" insurance market where plans with protections for pre-existing conditions can be sold.

Texas’s attorneys argued that with the mandate penalty removed, the rest of the law should go away too.
Click to expand...
The Justice Department declined to defend Obamacare in court, and said that it supports the lawsuit but only up to a point. The department believes that the pre-existing condition protections should be struck down in response to the lawsuit, but not the entire law.
Click to expand...

This seems like an odd strategy for an election year. It's hard to think of a less popular policy than bringing back pre-existing conditions.
 
Greenbeard said:
On the same day that new polling shows that "three-quarters of Americans want to preserve key protections in the Affordable Care Act that bar health insurers from turning away sick customers" and a SCOTUS nominee dodged questions on whether he would uphold the ban on pre-existing conditions, the GOP's quest to bring back pre-existing conditions kicked into high gear. And absurd as their legal argument is, they've started off with a friendly judge.

Federal judge sympathetic to lawsuit to end Obamacare


This seems like an odd strategy for an election year. It's hard to think of a less popular policy than bringing back pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...


It's called the The Ginsburg Rule.


The Ginsburg Rule is the common name for Canon 5 of the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which “prohibits a candidate for judicial office from making statements that commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court.”

While serving as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Vice President Joe Biden invoked the Canon during the confirmations hearing for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.

“I do think it’s appropriate to point out that, judge, you not only have a right to choose what you will and not answer, but in my view, you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court,” Biden said.

Ginsburg used the rule over 30 times during her confirmation hearing to avoid answering questions on a range of topics, including abortion.

https://ntknetwork.com/what-is-the-ginsburg-rule/


 
I have no problem with him not answering what may come before him. I have a serious problem with his judicial record and lack of judgement. He made a few good decisions and a plethora of bad ones
 
Greenbeard said:
On the same day that new polling shows that "three-quarters of Americans want to preserve key protections in the Affordable Care Act that bar health insurers from turning away sick customers" and a SCOTUS nominee dodged questions on whether he would uphold the ban on pre-existing conditions, the GOP's quest to bring back pre-existing conditions kicked into high gear. And absurd as their legal argument is, they've started off with a friendly judge.

Federal judge sympathetic to lawsuit to end Obamacare



This seems like an odd strategy for an election year. It's hard to think of a less popular policy than bringing back pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

After reading the article this is what I see...

"It does seem for majority of cases, the Supreme Court says to look at the original legislation as enacted," O'Connor said in Modern Healthcare's recounting. "Why would I not?
Click to expand...

The Judge is only following normal legal steps for "interpreting the law" as it applies to a case at bar. Especially when there are no legal precedent's to draw upon.

Rule/step 1. Plain Meaning. I.e. what does the law state in plain language? The understanding is that the law means exactly what it states, and nothing more.

There are several other methods, including Legislative Intent, but the first used will typically be Plain Meaning.

That's all the Judge is saying.
 
Last edited:
ClaraD said:
I have no problem with him not answering what may come before him. I have a serious problem with his judicial record and lack of judgement. He made a few good decisions and a plethora of bad ones
Click to expand...

is your claim based on

1) your politics

2) a broad understanding of legal precedent and the law

3) evidence that the USSC or an en banc overruled what you call bad decisions

4) your belief that Merrick Gartland made bad decisions since Kavanaugh and Gartland agreed on 97% of the time they were on the same panel?
 
Greenbeard said:
On the same day that new polling shows that "three-quarters of Americans want to preserve key protections in the Affordable Care Act that bar health insurers from turning away sick customers" and a SCOTUS nominee dodged questions on whether he would uphold the ban on pre-existing conditions, the GOP's quest to bring back pre-existing conditions kicked into high gear. And absurd as their legal argument is, they've started off with a friendly judge.

Federal judge sympathetic to lawsuit to end Obamacare





This seems like an odd strategy for an election year. It's hard to think of a less popular policy than bringing back pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

With only about 5 million of more than 200 million Americans voluntarily signing up for Obamacare, it is hard to imagine Congress can find much support to include pre-existing conditions in any resulting health plan forcing Americans to pay for skyrocketing healthcare costs.
 
marke said:
With only about 5 million of more than 200 million Americans voluntarily signing up for Obamacare, it is hard to imagine Congress can find much support to include pre-existing conditions in any resulting health plan forcing Americans to pay for skyrocketing healthcare costs.
Click to expand...

Congress has been unable to bring back pre-existing conditions (not for lack of trying), which is why the GOP and the Trump administration are now trying to get the courts to do it for them.
 
Greenbeard said:
Congress has been unable to bring back pre-existing conditions (not for lack of trying), which is why the GOP and the Trump administration are now trying to get the courts to do it for them.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that conservatives judges whom claim to be originalists like Scalia wanted to see the changes in legislation done in Congress...not the courts.

I don't believe a conservative court is going to do for a conservative Congress and President what they could not do for themselves through legislation.
 
I tend to concur with the Bloomberg opinion that the GOP is wandering into lose-lose blunder territory with this bizarre assault on protections from pre-existing conditions.

The states in the case, led by Texas, believe that the individual mandate is so crucial to the law that the whole thing needs to be struck down. The Trump administration is focused more narrowly on eliminating parts of the law that protect Americans with pre-existing conditions. Either way, experts see the case as a long shot. And the administration’s backing — a departure from the custom of defending federal law — looks like a blunder that may help Democrats in upcoming midterm elections while also bolstering the ACA.
Click to expand...
This lawsuit is more likely to give Democrats fodder for ads than actually damage the ACA.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 75 percent of Americans and 58 percent of Republicans feel guaranteed coverage for sick Americans is very important. Democrats are certain to highlight the Trump administration’s active attempt to end those protections, which could bolster their chances in midterm elections.

Large Democratic gains would have major health-care implications, most notably ending hopes for another attempt to repeal and replace the ACA anytime soon. A “blue wave” also could lead a number of states to accept the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid as a result of ballot initiatives and shifts in statehouse control. This would result in millions of people gaining health insurance and support the trend toward stability in the individual market. Democrats would also likely increase oversight of the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken the ACA by executive action and rulemaking.

It’s not easy to create a lose-lose-lose situation. But the GOP — facing likely defeats in court that could spill over into elections and the health-care policy world — may just have managed it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom