Skip to main content

View Diary: Split federal appeals judges hear arguments on Obamacare subsidies (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's already been argued. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    Griffith, Randolph, Edwards.

    •  Do you have a link to the ruling? (0+ / 0-)

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 05:24:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. It was just argued yesterday. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        Here's a Legal Times article on it.

        •  Thanks, that makes me feel better (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Villanova Rhodes

          I thought for a while that I was completely out of touch. Thanks for the link to the Legal Times.

          I bet I could outline what JRB will write.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:19:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Misread your coment, no JRB on the case (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Villanova Rhodes

          Looks like this may not win at the DC Circuit, at least at the three judge panel. Might pass en banc, but the SCOTUS could topple the apple cart on this one. It could be a chance for Roberts to split the baby.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:25:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed, but unless something (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            procedurally odd occurs, it'll be a while before it gets there and decided. Probably no earlier than June 2015 for a SCOTUS ruling, I would think, though shortcuts are possible.

            Meanwhile, facts on the ground start stacking up. Depending on the ruling, either everyone's getting subsidies or only the people with state-based exchanges get subsidies. So the (for convenience) red-state citizens eligible for subsidies either stand to have them taken away after getting them for more than a year, or never get them but see their blue-state brethren doing nicely. Either way, I'm not sure I'd want to be a red-state politician, and having Roberts split the baby by saying blue-state folks get their subsidies sure isn't going to help me. At that point, obviously depending on midterm results, there may well be critical mass to fix the law. If nothing else, the insurance companies will be pressuring them to do so.

            All of this assumes the DC Circuit decision doesn't invalidate the whole law because of the differential treatment of the states, and I haven't read anywhere near enough to have an opinion on the likelihood of that. And it assumes the death spiral doesn't kick in, but I think the law's other provisions are sufficient to stave that off for a while longer. Anyway, that's how I see it without benefit of reading the briefs.

            •  I haven't done any reading on this case yet (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Villanova Rhodes

              but it has the possibility of being very significant. The black letter language in the ACA is an easy place for any Justice to hang their hat.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:00:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Media (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Spam (24)
  • Congress (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site