NYCmetsfan
Banned
Glad to see #benghazi is back
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
Have you met Bob Beckel?
Retromelon
Member
Its a complex issue and she isnt blameless but surely you could be a little more tactful about this fender.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
It's not going to be as noteworthy as SSM.
They probably realized that Gay Marriage will be more controversial. I can't wait for tomorrow's reactions.
King wasn't a controversial ruling and wasn't along party lines so there's no reason for them to want to get out of town right after delivering it.
Retromelon
Member
Harry potter and the hirsute goblet
#thomas4kids #thatwasthebesticoulddo
#thomas4kids #thatwasthebesticoulddo
New Hampshire borders Vermont?
I'm guessing familiarity. Vermont is pretty close to NH so they'll know him better. The numbers will change as the votes get closer.
Macho Madness
Member
Maddow believes O vs H is coming tomorrow.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
People like to root for the hometown squad.
Obergefell tomorrow by itself, followed by a wrap-up day on Monday?
Today was amazing fun.
Sleep will be fleeting tonight.
I haven't heard so many strawman arguments and bullshit outside of PD posts.
http://conservative50.com/blog/why-...-party-of-slavery-and-victimization-zonation/
http://conservative50.com/blog/why-...-party-of-slavery-and-victimization-zonation/
CrimzonSamurai
Member
It will be interesting to see the scrambling in the states if they establish national marriage equality tomorrow. Already I know one has decided to try and remove marriage as a state recognized arrangement entirely and another was going to restrict married status to "people of faith."
Cuz, I mean, obviously, there's never been such a thing as a gay Christian. /s
Cuz, I mean, obviously, there's never been such a thing as a gay Christian. /s
benjipwns
Banned
Sure, but I'm not sure why being more familiar with Sanders automatically makes you more likely to support him even among the covert socialists in the Democratic Party.
Retromelon
Member
Because he's the real deal maaaaaaaan, not some corporate sellout like hillary
Except, it does? That's kind of the whole reason for campaign adds.
benjipwns
Banned
Then why's he running for the nomination from a corporation instead of as an independent huh? Sellouts everywhere breh.
Retromelon
Member
Well he has to aquiesce to some degree, he isnt exactly the 21st century mr smith goes to washington
Edit:btw im not a bernie sanders supporter im just having fun
RustyNails
Member
benji on a monster post streak
benjipwns
Banned
Retromelon
Member
Benji pls im begging you
If i die tonight everything will have been worth it
Poodlestrike
Banned
Wasn't this a picture with a smug looking dude leaning back in a chair a moment ago?
NEVEREDITTHO
benjipwns
Banned
Retromelon
Member
Nothing to see here
So how about cristie and jindal, what a clown car am i right
So how about cristie and jindal, what a clown car am i right
I was under the impression that was what was happening now, since his numbers are improving.
benjipwns
Banned
In the poll, his numbers in "don't know" have gone from 51% in July to 45% in October to 37% in February to 16% in June. (And his score in the polls from 5% to 3% to 6% to 13% to 35%.)
He's represented Vermont since 1991.
I'd argue it has less to do with his familiarity with voters being from the next state over and more with the fact that they stopped putting Warren as one of the choices in the poll. (She was at 20% in the last one.)
Retromelon
Member
Well, the hunger for a more liberal alternative is palpable. Otherwise, why wouldnt jim webb or martin o malley sponge up that support? Unless they aren't in those polls
Aaron Strife
Banned
I guess they didn't consider it a big deal. Nothing changed anyway.
Above the Law also thinks Obergefell could be tomorrow:
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/06/why-the-same-sex-marriage-decision-will-likely-come-out-tomorrow/
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/06/why-the-same-sex-marriage-decision-will-likely-come-out-tomorrow/
CrimzonSamurai
Member
If they are, I would hope that it's because everyone knows O'Malley is incompetent. His single biggest accomplishment was banning the death penalty in a solid blue state that had only executed five people since 1961, and then handed the reigns to a Republican who immediately backtracked on his campaign promises and started gutting education and transportation.
If this happens I want you all to bow to me and tell me how amazing I am for calling this shit.
It was out of respect...
I really wish we could know the four justices who wanted to take up King v. Burwell.
I am starting to think it could be the liberals too, because of how they doubled down by not only saying the subsidies are valid in every state, but shall remain so even under a different administration.
Retromelon
Member
My point still stands regardless of the disputed competency of mr o malley.
benjipwns
Banned
O'Malley's and Chafee's don't know is at 61%, Webb at 68%.
Biden and Clinton at 2%.
Webb and O'Malley didn't crack 1% in the poll until February and October respectively, Chafee got it in May and didn't this month.
Andrew Cuomo was an option in the poll as well in every other one until this one and he polled between 1-5%.
Biden's been all over the place, he was at 14% in July 2014, then down to 2% in May and now 8%.
EDIT: Also from last month to this month, second choices:
Hillary: 15% -> 25%
Biden: 18% -> 20%
Sanders: 11% -> 18%
O'Malley: 1% -> 3%
Chafee: 1% -> 2%
Webb: 2% -> 1%
Don't Know: 17% -> 26%
(Warren and Cuomo were 23% and 8% as second choices last month.)
Biden and Clinton at 2%.
Webb and O'Malley didn't crack 1% in the poll until February and October respectively, Chafee got it in May and didn't this month.
Andrew Cuomo was an option in the poll as well in every other one until this one and he polled between 1-5%.
Biden's been all over the place, he was at 14% in July 2014, then down to 2% in May and now 8%.
EDIT: Also from last month to this month, second choices:
Hillary: 15% -> 25%
Biden: 18% -> 20%
Sanders: 11% -> 18%
O'Malley: 1% -> 3%
Chafee: 1% -> 2%
Webb: 2% -> 1%
Don't Know: 17% -> 26%
(Warren and Cuomo were 23% and 8% as second choices last month.)
Biden won't have any sort of real numbers unless he actually starts running and getting the same exposure the other candidates are getting, right now the only exposure he has is Onion articles and when he's standing next to Obama during a speech making faces.
Looking at the numbers of people not yet running isn't going to tell us much, especially if it's not already assumed they're actually running.
Retromelon
Member
People like to joke about the republican field but at least there is some excitement in it. It feels like it could be anyones game. Meanwhile, all the declared democrats are squabbling with each other at Hillary's feet, and none of them have activated their obamafactor to turn the tide
CrimzonSamurai
Member
What do you mean by obamafactor? I don't think that particular brand of liberal populism is going to work again. 2008 was my first vote-eligible election and I ate it up, and now here we are and it turns out he was just a commendable but typical politician.
Although Sanders is doing pretty well on a similar, though maybe more extreme liberal populism. But his populism won't take him as far in the general as Obama's did.
I agree that at least there's something to watch on the GOP side.
Coriolanus
Banned
How is that even possible?
Avon Barksdale
Member
You mean the Chaos Emeralds?
Retromelon
Member
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
OK, I've read the opinion and, as promised, here are my thoughts. I'll spare you the suspense and admit up front that I disagree with the majority opinion. Luckily, however, there's little new in that opinion that I haven't already addressed, so I will rely on links to my prior posts on this topic instead of new content.
Part I of the majority opinion is background information regarding health insurance reform, the ACA, and the procedural posture of the case. I have nothing to say about it.
Part II begins discussing the merits of the case. The Court holds that its standard Chevron analysis (which we've discussed on at least a couple of occasions) doesn't apply here, because the question presented is one of "deep economic and political significance," and with respect to which the IRS is not expert. This was a twist I wasn't expecting, but I agree with the Court on this point.
In part II(A), the Court acknowledges that under section 36B, three factors must be satisfied: Individuals must enroll in an insurance plan (1) through an Exchange that is (2) established by the State (3) under 42 U.S.C. s. 18031. Regarding the first point, the Court mentions that HHS is required under 42 U.S.C. s. 18041 to establish "such Exchange," and interprets this as meaning "the same Exchange that the State was directed to establish." I still don't buy this reading. (As an additional thought, the Court later returns to this point when it writes, "State and Federal Exchanges would differ in a fundamental way if tax credits were available only on State Exchanges[.]" But 18041 is an instruction to HHS to create an Exchange that a state has failed to make, and neither the state nor HHS has any authority over the availability of tax credits.)
Regarding the second point, the Court concludes that "established by the State" "is not so clear" in light of the provisions relating to "qualified individuals." On that topic, see here (again), here (again), and here (ooooh yeah).
Regarding the third point, the Court concludes that an FFE is established "under [42 U.S.C. s. 18031], because the definition of "Exchange" includes that reference, all the requirements for an Exchange are stated in 18031, and because "the Act repeatedly uses the phrase . . . in situations where it would make no sense to distinguish between State and Federal Exchanges." I don't have any issues with the Court on this point.
The Court then explains that its conclusion that "established by the State under [42 U.S.C. s. 18031]" is ambiguous is supported by "several provisions that assume tax credits will be available on both State and Federal Exchanges." I've addressed the third such provision before, here (again) and here (again). Regarding the second, the use of "any" before "premium tax credit under section 36B" renders it unhelpful. In legal documents, "any" means there could be none. As for the first, I'll simply point you to Justice Scalia's dissent, where he points out that broadly applicable provisions need not be narrowly tailored and encumbered with exceptions.
In Part II(B), the Court considers "the broader structure of the Act," concluding that it wouldn't make sense for Congress to impose only one of the three reforms made by the ACA in states without state-established Exchanges. Here, I agree with Scalia's point, that the statute had multiple purposes, and it's inappropriate to interpret the statute with an eye to only one purpose at the expense of others. I've mentioned this before (point 8). The Court also states that the very existence of 18041 "refutes the argument that Congress believed it was offering the States a deal they would not refuse," but I don't think that's right. After all, it may have simply been a maneuver to avoid any argument that the federal government was commandeering states.
Finally, in Part II(C), the Court concludes that "the structure of Section 36B itself suggests that tax credits are not limited to State Exchanges." The Court then goes on to make the terrible argument I discussed here.
I would be much more comfortable with the Court's opinion if not for the portions that rely so heavily on purposivism rather than just looking to the text of the statute. (I've discussed my preference for textualism, and my disdain for purposivism, before, such as here, here, and here.) The conclusion, particularly, makes me worry about Roberts' interpretive methodology.
I enjoyed Scalia's dissent, but I wish it had made more of an affirmative case for his reading. Simply berating the majority opinion can only carry you so far.
Oh, and if anyone desires more schadenfreude over this case, I recommend listening to David Rivkin's portions of today's Federalist Society teleforum about it.
Part I of the majority opinion is background information regarding health insurance reform, the ACA, and the procedural posture of the case. I have nothing to say about it.
Part II begins discussing the merits of the case. The Court holds that its standard Chevron analysis (which we've discussed on at least a couple of occasions) doesn't apply here, because the question presented is one of "deep economic and political significance," and with respect to which the IRS is not expert. This was a twist I wasn't expecting, but I agree with the Court on this point.
In part II(A), the Court acknowledges that under section 36B, three factors must be satisfied: Individuals must enroll in an insurance plan (1) through an Exchange that is (2) established by the State (3) under 42 U.S.C. s. 18031. Regarding the first point, the Court mentions that HHS is required under 42 U.S.C. s. 18041 to establish "such Exchange," and interprets this as meaning "the same Exchange that the State was directed to establish." I still don't buy this reading. (As an additional thought, the Court later returns to this point when it writes, "State and Federal Exchanges would differ in a fundamental way if tax credits were available only on State Exchanges[.]" But 18041 is an instruction to HHS to create an Exchange that a state has failed to make, and neither the state nor HHS has any authority over the availability of tax credits.)
Regarding the second point, the Court concludes that "established by the State" "is not so clear" in light of the provisions relating to "qualified individuals." On that topic, see here (again), here (again), and here (ooooh yeah).
Regarding the third point, the Court concludes that an FFE is established "under [42 U.S.C. s. 18031], because the definition of "Exchange" includes that reference, all the requirements for an Exchange are stated in 18031, and because "the Act repeatedly uses the phrase . . . in situations where it would make no sense to distinguish between State and Federal Exchanges." I don't have any issues with the Court on this point.
The Court then explains that its conclusion that "established by the State under [42 U.S.C. s. 18031]" is ambiguous is supported by "several provisions that assume tax credits will be available on both State and Federal Exchanges." I've addressed the third such provision before, here (again) and here (again). Regarding the second, the use of "any" before "premium tax credit under section 36B" renders it unhelpful. In legal documents, "any" means there could be none. As for the first, I'll simply point you to Justice Scalia's dissent, where he points out that broadly applicable provisions need not be narrowly tailored and encumbered with exceptions.
In Part II(B), the Court considers "the broader structure of the Act," concluding that it wouldn't make sense for Congress to impose only one of the three reforms made by the ACA in states without state-established Exchanges. Here, I agree with Scalia's point, that the statute had multiple purposes, and it's inappropriate to interpret the statute with an eye to only one purpose at the expense of others. I've mentioned this before (point 8). The Court also states that the very existence of 18041 "refutes the argument that Congress believed it was offering the States a deal they would not refuse," but I don't think that's right. After all, it may have simply been a maneuver to avoid any argument that the federal government was commandeering states.
Finally, in Part II(C), the Court concludes that "the structure of Section 36B itself suggests that tax credits are not limited to State Exchanges." The Court then goes on to make the terrible argument I discussed here.
I would be much more comfortable with the Court's opinion if not for the portions that rely so heavily on purposivism rather than just looking to the text of the statute. (I've discussed my preference for textualism, and my disdain for purposivism, before, such as here, here, and here.) The conclusion, particularly, makes me worry about Roberts' interpretive methodology.
I enjoyed Scalia's dissent, but I wish it had made more of an affirmative case for his reading. Simply berating the majority opinion can only carry you so far.
Oh, and if anyone desires more schadenfreude over this case, I recommend listening to David Rivkin's portions of today's Federalist Society teleforum about it.
Coriolanus
Banned
You dissing hermeneutics, breh?
benjipwns
Banned
I see you failed to link to this March post of mine: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=154550194&postcount=1023
Yeah, I came around to 6-3 as well especially after reading what Kennedy said during oral argument.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked