• 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!

Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

Predicting the final verdict of the supreme court

  • 6-3 in favor of the law

    Votes: 7 30.4%

  • 5-4 in favor of the law

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • 5-4 againist the law

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • 6-3 againist the law

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Some other combination.

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Total voters
    23
Unitedwestand13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read the entire transcript, and there is no doubt that the majority of the court seemed to accept that the language was clear, state exchange means state exchange. The concern was the effect that such a ruling would have. I think the majority will strike down the use of federal exchanges, and stay their own decision for a time to allow congress to adjust.
 
Greenbeard said:
I can't imagine those words didn't ring hollow even to you while you were typing them.

There is no real argument that anyone intended to deny people in red states financial assistance (there's not even internal consistency within this alternate history conspiracy theory the anti-ACA opportunists have concocted), nor is there any evidence--in fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary, like the CBO score and the GOP's pay-fors in some of their repeal bills.

And so you're left with this nonsense, having to actively ignore the people who wrote it telling you what they wrote. Such contortions!
Click to expand...
Not at all. Liberals will lie to get what they want, why deny that? And they will lie to protect it. You don't expect me to believe that these leftists would stand up and say anything that would harm ACA do you? Sorry, but I will trust my own judgment, not what liberals say.
 
Paschendale said:
The case is complete nonsense. No one writing the law intended it to function the way whiny Republicans are saying it does. There is no legal justification to enforce their partisan tantrum as law.
Click to expand...

Of course they did. It was written that way to compel participation, while avoiding the political pitfall of the appearance of a federal takeover of all health care dollars. It is unreasonable to think that the legislation read as the government claims after the fact, because that would be an unconstitutional "do it or we'll do it for you" type mandate. The proverbial offer you can't refuse.
 
matchlight said:
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.
Click to expand...

Impeachment?

I detect the characteristic overheated tone of someone who is worried about the outcome.
 
sangha said:
Impeachment?

I detect the characteristic overheated tone of someone who is worried about the outcome.
Click to expand...

I've wanted to see impeachment of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, considered more seriously for years. It has nothing to do with how this case is decided. There are several other ways to frustrate Supreme Court decisions, and those should also be used more.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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/implementation/background/SmallBusinessHealthOptionsProgram.pdf
Click to expand...

How is Medicaid expansion even relative or comparable to the cases before the court today?

ACA is not and did not force states to set up their exchanges. ACA did not and is not forcing states to offer subsidies. So what is ACA forcing on the states in relation to the cases before the Court?

My presumptions [not assumptions] were at least based on the merits of the case.
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
How is Medicaid expansion even relative or comparable to the cases before the court today?

ACA is not and did not force states to set up their exchanges. ACA did not and is not forcing states to offer subsidies. So what is ACA forcing on the states in relation to the cases before the Court?

My presumptions [not assumptions] were at least based on the merits of the case.
Click to expand...

There were at least two major parts to Obamacare designed to prompt States to comply with the law: The Medicaid carrot and stick and the exchange/subsidy carrot and stick. The first one was struck down by the Supremes, the second on is up for judgment now.
 
Mycroft said:
There were at least two major parts to Obamacare designed to prompt States to comply with the law: The Medicaid carrot and stick and the exchange/subsidy carrot and stick. The first one was struck down by the Supremes, the second on is up for judgment now.
Click to expand...

Your assessment of carrots and sticks has no bearing on the cases before the court. How does whether subsidies was/is a incentive have anything to do with my post or the cases before the court.

Whether subsidies were used as in incentive to the states to set up their own exchanges had no bearing whether the state in fact did so. Furthermore, whether subsidies were used as incentives to the states to set up their own exchanges has no bearing on whether the federal government's exchanges would be allowed to offer the subsidies or not.

The question before the court is if Congress intended that federal exchanges created after the states chose not to set up their own exchanges...to offer the subsidies. Whether the Feds used subsidies as a carrot to the states is irrelevant.
 
1750Texan said:
Your assessment of carrots and sticks has no bearing on the cases before the court. How does whether subsidies was/is a incentive have anything to do with my post or the cases before the court.

Whether subsidies were used as in incentive to the states to set up their own exchanges had no bearing whether the state in fact did so. Furthermore, whether subsidies were used as incentives to the states to set up their own exchanges has no bearing on whether the federal government's exchanges would be allowed to offer the subsidies or not.

The question before the court is if Congress intended that federal exchanges created after the states chose not to set up their own exchanges...to offer the subsidies. Whether the Feds used subsidies as a carrot to the states is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that opinion makes sense to you, but I'm not so sure it'll make the same kind of sense to the Supreme Court. Given the statements of Gruber and his ilk, they may totally disagree with you.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm sure that opinion makes sense to you, but I'm not so sure it'll make the same kind of sense to the Supreme Court. Given the statements of Gruber and his ilk, they may totally disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Is it your opinion or someone else's?

You made no salient judicial reasoning. You didn't even make a connection between your[or your borrowed] assessment and the case.

Then went to hide behind Gruber.


Carrots and sticks is not ANY explanation of the case OR how MY assessment of the case...fails...OR how the Supreme Court will rule.
 
5-4 against the law as written in favor of the law as the government now wishes it was written instead. It doesn't matter what the law is anymore, someone will make up some new standard of "Yes, but" which will justify them voting in favor of their preferred solution rather than the actual application of the law, introducing more chaos into our legal system and furthering us down the road to rule by judicial fiat.
 
1750Texan said:
Is it your opinion or someone else's?

You made no salient judicial reasoning. You didn't even make a connection between your[or your borrowed] assessment and the case.

Then went to hide behind Gruber.


Carrots and sticks is not ANY explanation of the case OR how MY assessment of the case...fails...OR how the Supreme Court will rule.
Click to expand...

Is what my opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom