Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

.

I can't see them running her in 2016. You have buddy dywer or the tampa mayor, pat murphy, maybe someone from the state house, idk. This state is horrible even though there are so many democrats here.

At least they flipped Southerland's seat. She might be a good candidate in the future.

 

[Metaphoreus]

That's a big gap. Given how quickly they decided to take up the case (pretty unprecedented I'd say, when you figure it's rare for this to occur even with a complete lack of urgency) I wonder if that implies they will rule on it faster as well.

It's really not unprecedented. For instance, last year, Lane v. Franks was decided by the 11th Circuit on July 24, 2013. The petition for writ of certiorari was filed on October 15, 2013, the brief opposing certiorari on November 14, 2013, and on December 4, 2013, the case was set for distribution at the January 10 conference (i.e., the first conference after the Christmas break). At that first conference, the case was relisted for the next scheduled conference on January 17, at which cert. was granted. Oral argument was April 28, 2014, and the decision came down on June 19, 2014.

In comparison, in King, the 4th Circuit decided the case on July 22, 2014, the petition for writ of certiorari was filed July 31, 2014, the response filed (after an extension of time for filing) on October 3, and on October 15, the case was scheduled for distribution at the October 31 conference. At the October 31 conference, the case was relisted for the conference on November 7, and cert. was granted at that second conference.

So, cert. in King was granted a week more than three months after the petition was filed, whereas in Lane, cert. was granted in a couple of days more than three months. While it's true that the grant in King was only one month after the respondents' brief in opposition was filed, whereas the grant in Lane was two months after the respondent's brief was filed, the difference is clearly explained by the timing of the respondents' briefs relative to the holidays. So I disagree that there's something unprecedented about the timing in King.

 

[Diablos]

It's really not unprecedented. For instance, last year, Lane v. Franks was decided by the 11th Circuit on July 24, 2013. The petition for writ of certiorari was filed on October 15, 2013, the brief opposing certiorari on November 14, 2013, and on December 4, 2013, the case was set for distribution at the January 10 conference (i.e., the first conference after the Christmas break). At that first conference, the case was relisted for the next scheduled conference on January 17, at which cert. was granted. Oral argument was April 28, 2014, and the decision came down on June 19, 2014.

In comparison, in King, the 4th Circuit decided the case on July 22, 2014, the petition for writ of certiorari was filed July 31, 2014, the response filed (after an extension of time for filing) on October 3, and on October 15, the case was scheduled for distribution at the October 31 conference. At the October 31 conference, the case was relisted for the conference on November 7, and cert. was granted at that second conference.

So, cert. in King was granted a bit more than three months after the petition was filed, whereas in Lane, cert. was granted in a bit less than three months. While it's true that the grant in King was only one month after the respondents' brief in opposition was filed, whereas the grant in Lane was two months after the respondent's brief was filed, the difference is clearly explained by the timing of the respondents' briefs relative to the holidays. So I disagree that there's something unprecedented about the timing in King.

Fair enough.

I'm still nervous, because in Lane v. Franks they went against the lower courts and ruled in favor of the whistleblower. It's to my understanding if the court takes up these cases it's usually because they do not agree with how the lower courts have ruled. That does not bode well for the ACA and the people on the exchanges in most states. I hope I'm completely wrong.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Fair enough.

I'm still nervous, because in Lane v. Franks they went against the lower courts and ruled in favor of the whistleblower. It's to my understanding if the court takes up these cases it's usually because they do not agree with how the lower courts have ruled. That does not bode well for the ACA and the people on the exchanges in most states. I hope I'm completely wrong.

only 4 are needed for cert. a minority might want to overrule but the majority might feel the lower courts were right

 

[Aaron Strife]

Pat Murphy for Senate 2016, Gwen Graham for governor 2018 (unless Bill Nelson retires or decides to switch places)

I don't want DWS anywhere near those campaigns.

 

[Metaphoreus]

only 4 are needed for cert. a minority might want to overrule but the majority might feel the lower courts were right

Basically, this. But, if four want to overrule, and it was those four that voted to grant the petition, then that indicates they believe they have a fifth vote. At this point, it's all speculation, though.

 

[Diablos]

only 4 are needed for cert. a minority might want to overrule but the majority might feel the lower courts were right

Basically, this. But, if four want to overrule, and it was those four that voted to grant the petition, then that indicates they believe they have a fifth vote. At this point, it's all speculation, though.

Eh... how many times did the 4 justices who granted cert end up being the same who voted for/against something in the final decision? I doubt it's very common. I am sure as Meta is saying they end up getting at least one more vote. But I don't know.

It is maintained that the granting of a writ does not mean the SCOUTS necessarily disagrees with the lower court... yet they still think the petition is valid enough to hear the case? Kind of contradictory, no?

 

[ivysaur12]

Eh... how many times did the 4 justices who granted cert end up being the same who voted for/against something in the final decision? I doubt it's very common. I am sure as Meta is saying they end up getting at least one more vote.

It is maintained that the granting of a writ does not mean the SCOUTS necessarily disagrees with the lower court... yet they still think the petition is valid enough to hear the case? Kind of contradictory, no?

We also have no idea who and why cert was granted. That's all reading tea leaves. And we won't know who actually voted for cert until years later, if that information is ever released (though I imagine for the larger cases, there will be interest and it will).

Pat Murphy for Senate 2016, Gwen Graham for governor 2018 (unless Bill Nelson retires or decides to switch places)

I don't want DWS anywhere near those campaigns.

That seems right.

 

[Diablos]

We also have no idea who and why cert was granted. That's all reading tea leaves. And we won't know who actually voted for cert until years later, if that information is ever released (though I imagine for the larger cases, there will be interest and it will).

The optimist in me thinks the liberal wing joined with a conservative or two in laughing at King v. Burwell and want to reaffirm that it is indeed a weak argument so these kinds of cases can stop coming in. The realist in me thinks it is four conservatives who are foaming at the mouth to have another chance to kill the ACA since they failed to do so last time.

If the law is struck down because of a perceived typo (or real, depending on how you think) -- this sets a huge precedent. Special interest groups can start flooding the courts with lawsuits over perceived typos on all kinds of things.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It is maintained that the granting of a writ does not mean the SCOUTS necessarily disagrees with the lower court... yet they still think the petition is valid enough to hear the case? Kind of contradictory, no?

Not really. The justices may simply think the issue is important enough that they should decide it, once and for all.

 

[Diablos]

Not really. The justices may simply think the issue is important enough that they should decide it, once and for all.

Why? So that more people won't come forward with similar suits about the wording of the ACA in regards to subsidies? I can't see Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito agreeing with the lower court, and Roberts is even questionable to me, given how he ruled on the Medicaid expansion -- leave it to the state or it shall not be granted. This could very well be interpreted as a states right issue and we all know this court loves them some states rights.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm wondering how much the Florida math changes if Jeb is the nominee (which, at this point, I'm convinced is happening).

If the Dems concede the state's electoral votes and divert amost all resources elsewhere, how much does this screw the downticket races?

 

[Metaphoreus]

If the law is struck down because of a perceived typo (or real, depending on how you think) -- this sets a huge precedent. Special interest groups can start flooding the courts with lawsuits over perceived typos on all kinds of things.

Technical point: the ACA is not in danger of being struck down. An IRS regulation purporting to authorize subsidies on the federal exchange is the target of the lawsuit.

More importantly, the argument being raised by the plaintiffs isn't novel. If they win, it will be because the Court agrees with them that the IRS regulation contradicts the text of the statute. It's a well-established principle that agencies can't do that. So you shouldn't expect a flood of new litigation challenging all manner of laws as a result of a victory for the plaintiffs in this case.

EDIT:

Why? So that more people won't come forward with similar suits about the wording of the ACA in regards to subsidies? I can't see Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito agreeing with the lower court, and Roberts is even questionable to me, given how he ruled on the Medicaid expansion -- leave it to the state or it shall not be granted. This could very well be interpreted as a states right issue and we all know this court loves them some states rights.

Trying to figure out how the justices will vote and why they voted for cert. is pure speculation at this point. We don't even know which justices voted to grant cert.. I don't see much point in getting hung up on it. Oral argument will give us a better idea how the winds are blowing.

My point was a broader one, showing that granting certiorari really doesn't express a view on the merits, even in a case like this, where there is no circuit split (anymore).

 

[Diablos]

Technical point: the ACA is not in danger of being struck down. An IRS regulation purporting to authorize subsidies on the federal exchange is the target of the lawsuit.

...which effectively kills the law. Even you know that. I'm not talking like a lawyer here. I'm talking about the real life consequences of a ruling in favor of King. Obamacare is fucked if that happens. It will turn into what the GOP always says it is: the unaffordable care act.

More importantly, the argument being raised by the plaintiffs isn't novel. If they win, it will be because the Court agrees with them that the IRS regulation contradicts the text of the statute. It's a well-established principle that agencies can't do that. So you shouldn't expect a flood of new litigation challenging all manner of laws as a result of a victory for the plaintiffs in this case.

But with the way you are talking it seems like you are pretty confident that the majority will side with King.

Trying to figure out how the justices will vote and why they voted for cert. is pure speculation at this point. We don't even know which justices voted to grant cert.. I don't see much point in getting hung up on it. Oral argument will give us a better idea how the winds are blowing.

Oral argument is when -- next month?

My point was a broader one, showing that granting certiorari really doesn't express a view on the merits, even in a case like this, where there is no circuit split (anymore).

So even with no circuit split anymore, there's nothing out of the ordinary going on here in your view? Nothing at all?

What are you leaning towards happening, your personal feelings and your own interpretation of the law aside? A majority in favor of King or Burwell?

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm wondering how much the Florida math changes if Jeb is the nominee (which, at this point, I'm convinced is happening).

If the Dems concede the state's electoral votes and divert amost all resources elsewhere, how much does this screw the downticket races?

It depends on how hurt Rubio is from a primary and if it's an open seat or he's running. There's a lot of variables there.

Also, Democrats wouldn't necessarily need Florida to win while Republicans do. Democrats could win with OH and VA, and they're most likely going to win VA, given the trends of the state.

 

[Diablos]

Sorry to Diablos here, but if the subsidies in most states get nuked Democrats might not win anything for a long ass time.

 

[HylianTom]

It depends on how hurt Rubio is from a primary and if it's an open seat or he's running. There's a lot of variables there.

Also, Democrats wouldn't necessarily need Florida to win while Republicans do. Democrats could win with OH and VA, and they're most likely going to win VA, given the trends of the state.

If it's Jeb, I'm guessing that the starting point for the Dems is Kerry States + New Mexico, which would get them to 251EVs. And at this point, I'm pretty damn high on Virginia.. that'd be 264EV. Jeb would have to win every. single. other. state.

If things line-up like this, I wonder how long it would take the GOP's big donors to realize their situation. And once they do, what's the reaction? Do they pull money? Move on to state-level and congressional races? Try to bribe themselves into the good graces of the Dems?

(And if boring-ass, gaffe-prone Kerry can win those states in the shitty post-9/11 scarefest of an election, pretty much anyone whom the Dems nominate can carry his states.)

 

[Metaphoreus]

...which effectively kills the law. Even you know that. I'm not talking like a lawyer here. I'm talking about the real life consequences of a ruling in favor of King. Obamacare is fucked if that happens. It will turn into what the GOP always says it is: the unaffordable care act.

But with the way you are talking it seems like you are pretty confident that the majority will side with King.

Oral argument is when -- next month?

So even with no circuit split anymore, there's nothing out of the ordinary going on here in your view? Nothing at all?

What are you leaning towards happening, your personal feelings and your own interpretation of the law aside? A majority in favor of King or Burwell?

If SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs, then the issue is simply left up to Congress to fix. Whether they fix it or not will determine the significance of the ruling. I don't know how SCOTUS will rule, and I wouldn't venture to guess. We'll know soon enough, in any event.

According to this article, as many as 70% of cases accepted by the Supreme Court involve clear conflicts between federal appellate courts or state high courts. If that's right, then in some 30% of cases, the Court accepts the case despite there being no "clear conflict." Supreme Court Rule 10 expressly mentions such grants:

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, though neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers: . . .

(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court[.]​

The date for oral argument has not yet been set.

 

[Diablos]

If SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs, then the issue is simply left up to Congress to fix. Whether they fix it or not will determine the significance of the ruling. I don't know how SCOTUS will rule, and I wouldn't venture to guess. We'll know soon enough, in any event.

"Simply" up to Congress to fix? Do you live in a parallel universe? Are you aware of the GOP's opposition to the ACA? If they side with King, Congress will never allow for what would be a ridiculously easy fix.

According to this article, as many as 70% of cases accepted by the Supreme Court involve clear conflicts between federal appellate courts or state high courts. If that's right, then in some 30% of cases, the Court accepts the case despite there being no "clear conflict." Supreme Court Rule 10 expressly mentions such grants ...

Yes, but what I want to know is of those 30% or so of cases, how many of them reach a ruling that is the opposite of what the lower court says (i.e. subsidies are in fact not valid in states that don't operate their own exchange despite the lower courts stating otherwise)

The date for oral argument has not yet been set.

The sooner the better.

 

[HylianTom]

"Simply" up to Congress to fix? Do you live in a parallel universe? Are you aware of the GOP's opposition to the ACA? If they side with King, Congress will never allow for this.

Which leaves me to wonder: if this really does have a catastrophic effect on the country's economy and Congress refuses to fix it - whom do the voters blame?

I don't trust the Democrats to effectively manage the messaging around the case, that's for sure.

 

[Diablos]

Which leaves me to wonder: if this really does have a catastrophic effect on the country's economy and Congress refuses to fix it - whom do the voters blame?

I don't trust the Democrats to effectively manage the messaging around the case, that's for sure.

Voters will blame Obama/Democrats. The de facto name of the law is Obamacare. Most Americans have absolutely no concept of the conversation we're having in here right now about the implications of a ruling in favor of King. None. They'll just wake up one day and realize all of the sudden they can't afford their premium anymore, get upset, and come to the conclusion that the law was a bad idea/Republicans were right all along.

Because, really, if you aren't politically savvy and/or into law you aren't going to care much about the details of this case. From that point of view the logical conclusion would be, "holy shit, my health care really did go up under Obama's law, this thing needs to go, I cannot afford this."

 

[Avon Barksdale]

What exactly does Jeb Bush have going for himself aside from tarnished family name?

 

[HylianTom]

Voters will blame Obama/Democrats. The de facto name of the law is Obamacare. Most Americans have absolutely no concept of the conversation we're having in here right now about the implications of a ruling in favor of King. None. They'll just wake up one day and realize all of the sudden they can't afford their premium anymore, get upset, and come to the conclusion that the law was a bad idea/Republicans were right all along.

That's my suspicion.

Tinfoil hat time: conservatives on the court want to be replaced by a Republican president. And they know that this is their best shot at somehow breaking through the Blue Wall.

What exactly does Jeb Bush have going for himself aside from tarnished family name?

Speaks Spanish, locks-down a large must-win state that's been trending slightly away from his party, ability to get backing by big-money donors.. that's all I can come-up with off the top of my head.

 

[Diablos]

If the next President is Republican we will never progress. The SCOTUS will be solidified as right-wing for the rest of our lives. So it isn't entirely a stretch to think that.

 

[RustyNails]

If the next President is Republican we will never progress. The SCOTUS will be solidified as right-wing for the rest of our lives. So it isn't entirely a stretch to think that.

Even if Hillary wins two terms, a left leaning SC is still not guaranteed.

 

[Averon]

Even if Hillary wins two terms, a left leaning SC is still not guaranteed.

Yup. You need the Senate, too. If Hilary is President, and a SC vacancy opens up and the GOP controls the Senate, you can bet you bottom dollar Hilary will put up a right leaning judge and emphasize how "centrist" he or she is.

 

[thepotatoman]

Which leaves me to wonder: if this really does have a catastrophic effect on the country's economy and Congress refuses to fix it - whom do the voters blame?

I don't trust the Democrats to effectively manage the messaging around the case, that's for sure.

I think voters will default to fix over replace, as that's what's more popular even today, but I'm worried about time being on Republicans side. As time goes on and gridlock continues to go on and on and on, that's when voters might start putting their frustrations on democrats to end the gridlock as the writers of the bill in the first place.

 

[HylianTom]

Yup. You need the Senate, too. If Hilary is President, and a SC vacancy opens up and the GOP controls the Senate, you can bet you bottom dollar Hilary will put up a right leaning judge and emphasize how "centrist" he or she is.

I'm not sure about that. I could see her pulling the same trick that Bill did, asking the Republicans for suggestions. Ginsburg was Orrin Hatch's (unaninmously-approved) suggestion. Worked out pretty well.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yup. You need the Senate, too. If Hilary is President, and a SC vacancy opens up and the GOP controls the Senate, you can bet you bottom dollar Hilary will put up a right leaning judge and emphasize how "centrist" he or she is.

no. she'll put up a left leaning judge.

judges get through congresses even when their party isn't in power. Kennedy got through a democratic congress and obama's picks both got 60+ votes and clinton put many justices on the courts.

she won't put up a firebrand but if they're qualified and stay mum on abortion they'll be good.

 

[PhoenixDark]

What exactly does Jeb Bush have going for himself aside from tarnished family name?

An even better question: how the hell is he going to get the nomination while championing Common Core and immigration? The midterms might actually have hurt his chances, considering that multiple states are now perfectly poised to continue making Common Core a toxic issue (on the right), get rid of it, etc. Likewise Obama's (allegedly) imminent immigration executive action will no doubt result in an extreme response from the right at every level of government. He'll be forced to come out against the action, and in 2 years the only people who will remember his opposition will be Hispanics.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yup. You need the Senate, too. If Hilary is President, and a SC vacancy opens up and the GOP controls the Senate, you can bet you bottom dollar Hilary will put up a right leaning judge and emphasize how "centrist" he or she is.

Ehhh… I don't know about that.

An even better question: how the hell is he going to get the nomination while championing Common Core and immigration? The midterms might actually have hurt his chances, considering that multiple states are now perfectly poised to continue making Common Core a toxic issue (on the right), get rid of it, etc. Likewise Obama's (allegedly) imminent immigration executive action will no doubt result in an extreme response from the right at every level of government. He'll be forced to come out against the action, and in 2 years the only people who will remember his opposition will be Hispanics.

That's my feeling as well. I just don't think Jeb can make it through a primary, and even if he does, he'll be where McCain and Romney were after the primaries. Utterly unelectable.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

An even better question: how the hell is he going to get the nomination while championing Common Core and immigration? The midterms might actually have hurt his chances, considering that multiple states are now perfectly poised to continue making Common Core a toxic issue (on the right), get rid of it, etc. Likewise Obama's (allegedly) imminent immigration executive action will no doubt result in an extreme response from the right at every level of government. He'll be forced to come out against the action, and in 2 years the only people who will remember his opposition will be Hispanics.

outside money, flip flopping.

aka romney

you missed all the quotes about how the real winners this week were the national party who shaped up their candidates away from being angles, o'donnell's, akins?
the quotes about how prebus said he goal was to prevent 'unqualified' candidates from getting the nomination, or even being in the pictures. They're gonna marginalize them.

 

[ivysaur12]

outside money, flip flopping.

aka romney

you missed all the quotes about how the real winners this week were the national party who shaped up their candidates away from being angles, o'donnell's, akins?
the quotes about how prebus said he goal was to prevent 'unqualified' candidates from getting the nomination, or even being in the pictures. They're gonna marginalize them.

Except it's not just about recruiting because it's not a Senate race. The RNC would love to have Jeb or Christie as their nominee, but they can't just pick the nominee like they could with a Senate candidate and push them through the nominee process. Cruz is going to run his campaign no matter what the RNC says. Will he win? Probably not. But their primary will force whoever the winner is more to the right than someone who could be electable in a general.

 

[HylianTom]

That's my feeling as well. I just don't think Jeb can make it through a primary, and even if he does, he'll be where McCain and Romney were after the primaries. Utterly unelectable.

I think we'll be able to say that about almost anyone they nominate.

Their nominee will:
- be forced to jump through litmus test hoops
- appear on the debate stages with an assortment of goofiness-spouting kooks (a really unflattering visual)
- drain his campaign's coffers just to cobble-together enough delegates for nomination
- exit a process that is set-up such that it's near-impossible to emerge without alienating some part of the base

Meanwhile, the Democratic nominee (and her surrogates) will be taking pot shots from the sidelines through the whole process, probably going a long way towards defining the GOP's nominee before the general campaign begins in earnest.

Between the electoral math and the primary situation, I'm not fretting over any of the GOP's nominees. Unless, against all odds, they magically unite early behind a Walker-Rubio ticket that nails-down Florida & Wisconsin, along with western states heavy with Hispanic voters (CO/NV in particular).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Except it's not just about recruiting because it's not a Senate race. The RNC would love to have Jeb or Christie as their nominee, but they can't just pick the nominee like they could with a Senate candidate and push them through the nominee process. Cruz is going to run his campaign no matter what the RNC says. Will he win? Probably not. But their primary will force whoever the winner is more to the right than someone who could be electable in a general.

they can control a lot. debate access, funding, etc.

 

[ivysaur12]

they can control a lot. debate access, funding, etc.

You think Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee won't get those things?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You think Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee won't get those things?

not as much as the jebs of the world and who the establishment wants.

fox is already cutting carson's off

 

[ivysaur12]

not as much as the jebs of the world and who the establishment wants.

fox is already cutting carson's off

Carson is leaving Fox News to run for office, not the other way around.

 

[RustyNails]

Yup. You need the Senate, too. If Hilary is President, and a SC vacancy opens up and the GOP controls the Senate, you can bet you bottom dollar Hilary will put up a right leaning judge and emphasize how "centrist" he or she is.

That and Scalia is immortal.

 

[Yoda]

Even if Hillary wins two terms, a left leaning SC is still not guaranteed.

Will certainly be liberal on social issues. Most likely will bend over for corporate america though.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Will certainly be liberal on social issues. Most likely will bend over for corporate america though.

just like clinton's appt? or Obama's?

 

[PhoenixDark]

outside money, flip flopping.

aka romney

you missed all the quotes about how the real winners this week were the national party who shaped up their candidates away from being angles, o'donnell's, akins?
the quotes about how prebus said he goal was to prevent 'unqualified' candidates from getting the nomination, or even being in the pictures. They're gonna marginalize them.

They can't marginalize South Carolina, which will once again be the gutter point for the primary process. Even Iowa could be ridiculous as well.

I don't expect a Cruz type to win, I agree an establishment candidate will get the nod. But he'll do quite a bit of damage to himself in order to get there. I can already envision Christie going off script with some ugly comments on immigration, and there's also the issue of him having to do/say something to appeal to the religious right. It's going to be an ugly process again.

 

[NeoXChaos]

They can't marginalize South Carolina, which will once again be the gutter point for the primary process. Even Iowa could be ridiculous as well.

I don't expect a Cruz type to win, I agree an establishment candidate will get the nod. But he'll do quite a bit of damage to himself in order to get there. I can already envision Christie going off script with some ugly comments on immigration, and there's also the issue of him having to do/say something to appeal to the religious right. It's going to be an ugly process again.

Oh dont worry. Our boy christie is already imploding on his own.

"voting mechanisms"
"Sit down and shut up"
"Hey Gail, you know what? first off, its none of your business. I dont ask you where you send your kids to school. Dont bother me about where I send mine.

"Really? You know something may go down tonight, but it ain't gonna be jobs sweetheart"

"Did I stay on topic or are you stupid"
"your rear ends gonna get thrown in jail, idiot"

On his health:

"I will have a conversation with her about that ""Until then, she should shut up"


He is clearly a ticking time bomb waiting to go off at any moment. If he cant handle simple disagreements, I fear what he might do as president

 

[Wilsongt]

hahahaohwow.jpg

All of the senate appointees to chair positions are old as dust white men. Most, anyway

 

[Black Mamba]

More importantly, the argument being raised by the plaintiffs isn't novel. If they win, it will be because the Court agrees with them that the IRS regulation contradicts the text of the statute. It's a well-established principle that agencies can't do that. So you shouldn't expect a flood of new litigation challenging all manner of laws as a result of a victory for the plaintiffs in this case.

All precedent shows deference to the agency's interpretation unless it's fucking obvious they are intentionally ignoring the law.

In fact, to overrule would go against everything the SCOTUS has ever done remotely in this realm. They always defer to the executive on such matters.

And there's two questions that must be answered. One is what you say, the second is whether the law actually says what the plaintiffs claim. It can fail at either stage.

Trying to figure out how the justices will vote and why they voted for cert. is pure speculation at this point. We don't even know which justices voted to grant cert.. I don't see much point in getting hung up on it. Oral argument will give us a better idea how the winds are blowing.

I'll agree here. There's no point to this type of speculation.

For all we know it might end up being 9-0 in deference to IRS interpretation since they always defer.

It could be that numerous justices want to take this case up to deter future challenges regarding the interpreting of statutes in this manner.

I'm sure if you went through all of the US statutes, you can find numerous mistakes like the one that appears in the ACA. Ruling against the gov't in this case could open pandora's box. If they want to stop such shenanigans, best to take this case now and end it.

This case has a lot of consequences unrelated to the ACA. It's not really about the ACA at all, it's about a case about how Courts should interpret the meaning of statutes and to what degree they defer interpretation to the executive. It's an immensely broad ruling that will come out.

And also why ruling against the gov't would be so ludicrous and against everything they've ever done you might as well assume the SCOTUS is a joke which I have never believed. It's exactly why most judges who've taken up this case have laughed at it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

All precedent shows deference to the agency's interpretation unless it's fucking obvious they are intentionally ignoring the law.

In fact, to overrule would go against everything the SCOTUS has ever done remotely in this realm. They always defer to the executive on such matters.

And there's two questions that must be answered. One is what you say, the second is whether the law actually says what the plaintiffs claim. It can fail at either stage.

What you say is the second question is really just the first question rephrased. If the statute says that subsidies are only available on state-established exchanges, then the IRS regulation contradicts the statute. In that event, the IRS regulation will fail, since regulations can't contradict acts of Congress.

You are right that there are two questions (maybe), though, and the regulation could fail as a result of the answer to either one. The court, in considering the lawfulness of a regulation, asks the following two questions. First, the court decides whether the statute makes Congress' intent clear. "If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." If it decides that the statute is ambiguous, it moves on to the second question, which is "whether the agency's [regulation] is based on a permissible construction of the statute." So, if the IRS rule fails, it won't necessarily be because the Court agrees that the statute clearly contradicts the regulation; it could be because the Court believes the IRS rule is not a permissible construction of the ACA. However, a judgment against the regulation at the second of Chevron's two steps is not likely, because, as you say, the Court is highly deferential at that step.

But to say that the Supreme Court invalidating the IRS rule in this case would be unprecedented is simply incorrect. It hasn't even been six months since the Supreme Court invalidated a regulation of the EPA in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

[zero shift]

LOL at Vietnam. What a waste of time, money, and lives that war was. Just let them be communist and they'll figure it out on their own. Venezuela will eventually learn the same lesson.

Venezuela is pretty much equal to the U.S. thoughts. Japan is like number #1. I think it depends on the context of the environment in how the question is seen. But yeah LOL Vietnam, I mean the best way to have the people in these countries to learn is to well give them the opportunity to learn themselves.

 

[Enker]

But to say that the Supreme Court invalidating the IRS rule in this case would be unprecedented is simply incorrect. It hasn't even been six months since the Supreme Court invalidated a regulation of the EPA in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency.

I wouldn’t say they invalidated what EPA was doing, merely limited the applicable scope. Otherwise Connecticut DEEP would be breaking the law by issuing CO2 Title V permit limitations even now.

Plus, they single-handedly could have left NOx/SO2 cap and trade in “Barely a deterrent to pollution” limbo by upholding the stay on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation. Yet here we are with the stay lifted and the rule beginning 1/1/2015.

The better test for rule invalidation where the EPA is concerned will be when the Clean Power Plan (111d) inevitably works its way up to SCOTUS.

 

[Crisco]

You know what the Democrats should do? Propose a bill that fixes the errant language in the ACA which also ties the subsidies to the medicaid expansion. If your state didn't accept the Medicaid expansion, then your residents no longer get Obamacare subsidies. The only to teach these yokels to stop voting for GOP representation is make them face the consequences of their choices.

 

[stonesak]

You know what the Democrats should do? Propose a bill that fixes the errant language in the ACA which also ties the subsidies to the medicaid expansion. If your state didn't accept the Medicaid expansion, then your residents no longer get Obamacare subsidies. The only to teach these yokels to stop voting for GOP representation is make them face the consequences of their choices.

That'd be great if you don't care about punishing millions of people who supported the ACA despite living in a red state.