Context supports the idea that the law was crafted for no subsidies on healthcare.gov?
Stop.
Did you follow the progress of the bill in 2009? Did you even know what it was?
The challengers' argument is that "The Act’s Structure and Context Confirm the Plain Text of the Subsidy Provision" (p. 27 of their merits brief). "Context," here (and as used by the courts), does not refer to legislative history ("the progress of the bill"), but to other parts of the statute's text.
I made a similar argument regarding context (though without using that word) in my
response to eBay Huckster not long ago.
Its very clear they're playing on real fears in the latino community that this will be used to track them. Its purely hypothetical and intentionally trying to say, even if this stuff passes a new president can track you, don't sign up.
Its concern trolling with the intent to depress participation. There's not need to ponder those hypothetical.
But of course there is. In considering whether to grant an injunction, the court is called upon to consider the interests not only of both sides in a lawsuit, but also of third parties. The court already concluded that the states had shown a likelihood of success on the merits (another requirement for obtaining an injunction), so had to consider what would happen if DAPA were permitted to be put into effect and then invalidated.
And, realistically, do you think the judge expected much of anyone--regardless of citizenship or immigration status--to read his 123-page opinion? The theory that this was intended as intimidation at an audience unlikely to ever encounter it just doesn't pass the smell test.
Metaphoreus, based on your gut who do you think will win the case? Obviously you sympathize with the argument against the government's but do you think the SC will agree?
I don't know. I can't deny the strong emotional case to be made against accepting the challengers' argument, notwithstanding the legal merits of their claims. (I don't mean to say that SCOTUS siding with the government would necessarily be because of heartstring-tugging
amici; it's certainly possible that the Court could side with the government on textualist grounds or by resort to some other doctrine (such as the coercion issue). So long as the Court adopts a serious textualist approach (unlike, say, the Fourth Circuit's approach), I'll be happy regardless of the outcome.)
That's a silly question. Of course he does. Take away millions of people's subsidies, and potential health care, on the idea of strange wording. Sounds like Miralax's idea of a good time.
I can speak for myself, thank you very much.
I'm sure from your perspective the judge was just giving them the relevant info and wasn't trying to dissuade them from accepting Johnson's invitation out of the shadows.
Again, from my perspective, he wasn't speaking to immigrants at all. Most likely, he had in mind the judges of the 5th Circuit and the justices of the Supreme Court.
