This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Protesters outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act.
It's not over yet.

In the coming days, two federal courts will rule on the most laughable of challenges to Obamacare. Or they would be laughable, if the Supreme Court majority hadn't already proven that it's perfectly willing to make bullshit decisions about the law. This one, though, is different because what's at stake is the insurance 4.7 million people obtained this year through the federal exchange.

The theory in these suits is purely resting on semantics, that the language of the law does not allow for health insurance subsidies to go to people who buy their insurance on the federal exchange. They contend that the drafters of the law specifically said that the subsidies were only available "through an exchange established by the state," and by "state" they meant one of the 50 states. It's an interesting interpretation, since it was news to the drafters:

It was so secret that it was never mentioned in any of the voluminous debates or hearings on the act. Indeed, not even the heads of the House and Senate committees in charge of the legislation knew of it, as they have stated in briefs filed in the courts. It was, rather, hidden deep in the statute for someone some day to find and use to bring down the law and the protections it offers to uninsured Americans.
The problem is, we've seen how little the Supreme Court cares about congressional intent in Hobby Lobby. The drafters of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act filed a brief explaining that the law did not apply to for-profit corporations, and look how seriously the Supremes took that. But before these cases come to the SCOTUS, they have to make it through the appeals level, and there we're looking at kind of a mixed bag.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit who heard Halbig v. Burwell seemed split along party lines in the oral arguments, with one judge Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee, leaning toward the challengers. If this panel decides for the challengers, the administration will undoubtedly ask for a ruling from the entire DC Court, which (thanks to filibuster reform) will surely reverse it.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is pondering an identical complaint, and from those oral arguments, seems more than likely to toss it as the ridiculous stunt that it is.

“You are asking us,” Judge Davis capped off an especially testy exchange near the end of the session, “to kick millions of Americans off health insurance, just to save four people [Carvin’s four individual plaintiffs] a few dollars.”
One really doesn't want to believe that the SCOTUS would look at the previous rulings by appeals courts and even consider taking this case, which undoubtedly will go to them on appeal, because these people are intent on destroying the law. Since this one doesn't have anything to do with icky sex, maybe they'll deny to hear it, but no one should be holding their breath on that.

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:02 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.