I thought it was going to be a 6-3 vote. :smarty:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-obama-health-care-law-n375536
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf
QuoteThe U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the reach of the Obama health care law, rescuing the program from a potentially fatal legal challenge for the second time since Obamacare's inception.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices said consumers qualify for a subsidy that lowers the cost of premiums whether they buy their coverage through federal or state exchanges. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," the court wrote in its majority opinion .
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said people should start calling the law "SCOTUScare."
"This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."
More than six million lower-income Americans who get their health insurance through the federal marketplace or exchange — HealthCare.Gov — depend on the subsidies, reducing their premiums an average of 72 percent, saving an average of $270 a month.
Opponents of the law claimed that the actual wording of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress made subsidies available only to insurance customers who bought their policies through "an exchange established by the state" where the policyholders live.
If the challengers had prevailed, customers who bought their insurance on the federal exchange — by far the majority of those insured by Obamacare — would have lost the subsidies. Only 16 states now have their own health exchanges up and running.
The health insurance industry had warned that if the challenge succeeded, the Affordable Care Act would have entered a "death spiral" — with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse.
Among the law's provisions are requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions and that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance. Congress knew that those components of the health care system would not work, the Obama administration had argued, if the subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of people were available only on state exchanges.
QuoteJustice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said people should start calling the law "SCOTUScare."
Trying to steal all the glory from Obama Scalia? For shame.
Ok Tim so let's see if you can really predict that shit - gay marriage decision split? 6:3 or 5:4?
Darn. I was hoping it would fail, thereby severely damaging the GOP, and forcing US to reconsider single payer, and possibly preventing me from having to pay that tax hit this year. :blush:
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2015, 11:42:18 AM
Darn. I was hoping it would fail, thereby severely damaging the GOP, and forcing US to reconsider single payer, and possibly preventing me from having to pay that tax hit this year. :blush:
AFAIK they were only ruling on the subsidy, not the whole deal.
As I understand it, ruling against the subsidies would've broken the program's back.
Roberts is a little "c" conservative and is very protective of the institutional position of the Court. Thus not inclined to throw out a major piece of legislation extensively negotiated between the two coordinate branches on a technicality.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2015, 04:22:20 PM
Roberts is a little "c" conservative and is very protective of the institutional position of the Court. Thus not inclined to throw out a major piece of legislation extensively negotiated between the two coordinate branches on a technicality.
I agree with the first part. This was shown when he made up that bald-faced lie about the penalties previously.
I wouldn't call this particular issue a technicality. It was a simple fuckup.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2015, 04:25:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2015, 04:22:20 PM
Roberts is a little "c" conservative and is very protective of the institutional position of the Court. Thus not inclined to throw out a major piece of legislation extensively negotiated between the two coordinate branches on a technicality.
I agree with the first part. This was shown when he made up that bald-faced lie about the penalties previously.
I wouldn't call this particular issue a technicality. It was a simple fuckup.
What?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2015, 04:25:04 PM
I wouldn't call this particular issue a technicality. It was a simple fuckup.
Sure but the consequence of the fuckup is that there is no way to read the words of the statute as written and have it make coherent sense.
At that point, there are two possible responses. One is to read it in the way it was clearly intended i.e. to rescue the coordinate branch from the fuckup. The other is to rub Congress' nose in it. The differences in those approaches reflects a longstanding debate on statutory interpretation and the role of Congressional purpose and is very well reflected in the two opinions here.
For example:
QuoteBut in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.
vs.
QuoteMuch less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.
BTW, is there precedent for "they really meant to say this?"
Legislative intent
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2015, 11:11:02 AM
Ok Tim so let's see if you can really predict that shit - gay marriage decision split? 6:3 or 5:4?
IMO they will delivery a major victory to the gay marriage folks. Religious fundies will be beside themselves.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2015, 11:36:37 PM
Legislative intent
Yeah, if there wasn't, that would be one more case for "wow, America is different from every single country on the planet".
I find your posts reassuring, by the way - if one listened to Yi and other Languish lawyers, it would seem US legal system is pretty bizarre.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2015, 12:07:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2015, 11:11:02 AM
Ok Tim so let's see if you can really predict that shit - gay marriage decision split? 6:3 or 5:4?
IMO they will delivery a major victory to the gay marriage folks. Religious fundies will be beside themselves.
Kennedy is a lock to vote in favor.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2015, 11:59:46 AM
As I understand it, ruling against the subsidies would've broken the program's back.
:yes: My coverage premium is after a $200 monthly tax credit. People in my income bracket would be just saying "screw the mandate" and going back off insurance if we had to shoulder an extra $2,400 a year.
Obviously legislative intent is important, and a reason that I dislike the use of the term "rules lawyer" for people who read rules like a computer program and not like a law.
That being said, by far the strongest signal of legislative intent is what is actually written in the law. Otherwise why write the law like that if you're an organization of adults (which you would have to assume for a legislative body)? Lots of laws are completely retarded so a law being bizarre doesn't say much in this context.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 12:17:55 AM
I find your posts reassuring, by the way - if one listened to Yi and other Languish lawyers, it would seem US legal system is pretty bizarre.
Yi is a lawyer?
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 07:48:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 12:17:55 AM
I find your posts reassuring, by the way - if one listened to Yi and other Languish lawyers, it would seem US legal system is pretty bizarre.
Yi is a lawyer?
Well, he does talk a lot about law, so I presume he is. :P
If you are an American and you are in any way political you will babble alot about the legal system whether you are actually knowledgeable about it or not :P
It's the same in Poland, only with healthcare and education. Everybody is an expert. :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 12:17:55 AM
Yeah, if there wasn't, that would be one more case for "wow, America is different from every single country on the planet".
I find your posts reassuring, by the way - if one listened to Yi and other Languish lawyers, it would seem US legal system is pretty bizarre.
It seems to have eluded your all-seeing eye that I am agreeing with Joan. :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2015, 03:07:35 AM
That being said, by far the strongest signal of legislative intent is what is actually written in the law.
The interpretive rule followed in the federal cases is that the text is applied as written unless there is an ambiguity; in determining ambiguity one looks at the entire law and the context of the particular provision. If ambiguity is present, then one can look at the broader structure and purpose.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 26, 2015, 01:50:50 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2015, 11:59:46 AM
As I understand it, ruling against the subsidies would've broken the program's back.
:yes: My coverage premium is after a $200 monthly tax credit. People in my income bracket would be just saying "screw the mandate" and going back off insurance if we had to shoulder an extra $2,400 a year.
Here's a line from the Supreme Court:
QuoteIn the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insurance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. . . Th[e] system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. Without the federal subsidies, individ-uals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges, and some insurers may be unwilling to offer insurance inside of exchanges. With fewer buyers and even fewer sellers, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all
That was written by Justice Scalia in the first ACA case back in 2012 and signed on by all the dissenters in the King v. Burwell case. It really highlights the incredible weight the dissenters in this case are putting on legal formalism and a robotic reading the text. They all acknowledged that the under their reading the federal exchanges are a dead letter and the law simply would not operate as intended in the states that don't set up their own exchanges.
One other thing to remember is that the purpose of a law often is different from the stated purpose of a law. You normally don't put stuff like "look strong on issue X in time for the election year Y" in the preamble.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 07:51:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 07:48:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 12:17:55 AM
I find your posts reassuring, by the way - if one listened to Yi and other Languish lawyers, it would seem US legal system is pretty bizarre.
Yi is a lawyer?
Well, he does talk a lot about law, so I presume he is. :P
There is a deep irony here.