KING V. BURWELL IS MUCH BIGGER THAN OBAMACARE

[Geee]

American Spectator:

John Adams, in a 1775 essay referencing the Roman historian Livy and other sources, wrote that a republic was “a nation of laws, not of men.” As recently as fifty years ago, most Americans would have intuitively understood his point and why it was relevant to their lives. Today, it isn’t clear that the President of the United States, the leaders of the Democratic Party, or the members of our “news” media would grasp the meaning of Adams’ words, much less that they still matter today. We will soon discover if the same can be said of the Supreme Court.

 

The Court will hear oral arguments this Wednesday in King v. Burwell. The petitioners in this case want the justices to rule that the Obama administration must abide by the provisions of PPACA that govern insurance subsidies. The text of that law, better known as Obamacare, requires that all subsidies must flow through exchanges established by the states. But due to the refusal of 36 states to set up such “marketplaces,” the Obama administration cobbled together federal exchanges in those states through which it is now issuing illegal subsidies.

 

In other words, the President conducts himself in a manner utterly inconsistent with republican principles and his constitutional oath. Obama obviously believes the law is what he says it is, a delusion evidently shared by his party and the press. He behaves as if he possesses the power to unilaterally change laws and create new ones merely because the opposition party actually opposes his agenda. Adams characterized such behavior as that of “a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy.”

[Valin]

@Geee

 

Also See

 

The Roberts Court and Obamacare

 

H/T @Draggingtree

[Draggingtree]

The conservative case for the Supreme Court to uphold ObamaCare

March 2, 2015 JOEL DODGE

The latest legal challenge to ObamaCare, for which the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week, has been roundly condemned for relying on a spurious reading of the law's intent. But here's another reason the high court should reject the challengers' claims: to protect states' rights.

That's the argument raised by a group of law professors and non-profit organizations in a brief (which I advised on) filed with the court.

In King v. Burwell, challengers to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act argue that the statute's language only allows the federal government to provide subsidies to help individuals purchase insurance in states that have established their own health exchanges. Because only 14 states have done so, this threatens to wrench subsidies from millions of Americans, likely leaving most unable to afford insurance.

But the challengers' interpretation of the law also redefines the relationship between the federal and state governments in

[Geee]

HAVE WE REALLY COME TO THIS?

Has liberal fear-mongering spooked the GOP into fearing a win in King v. Burwell?

 

 

In a Sunday interview on Fox News, a supporter of Obamacare parroted the current liberal line that if the Supreme Court were to side with the plaintiffs in the upcoming case of King v. Burwell thousands of Americans will die.

 

The King case, in which oral arguments will be heard on Wednesday, challenges the ability of the IRS to provide tax subsidies to Americans who purchase health insurance through the federal exchange, Healthcare.gov, because the clear language of the Affordable Care Act states that subsidies are only available in “an exchange established by the state.” Jonathan Gruber told us that the language was crafted intentionally to force states to create exchanges; it was not, as some have tried to claim, a “drafting error.”

 

An amicus brief to the Court from a group of “public health” academics argues with remarkable specificity that “a decision striking down the IRS rule… can be expected to translate into over 9,800 additional deaths annually.” The statists at the Center for American Progress note a “slightly less grim” method that “suggests that approximately 8,000 people will die every year if the King plaintiffs prevail.”

 

Given the ignorance of the American people when it comes to little things like liberty, the Constitution, and economics, some of this fear-mongering might actually sink into the minds of citizens.

http://spectator.org/articles/61936/have-we-really-come

[Geee]

Republicans to high court: We have ObamaCare plan

 

Republicans are trying to convince the Supreme Court that their party is nearing a consensus on how to replace about $25 billion of ObamaCare subsidies that the justices could strike down later this year.

 

The senators’ last-minute attempt to rally their party is an effort to counter criticism that the party lacks a plan to deal with a victory by plaintiffs challenging the legality of the subsidies.

 

It is also a direct appeal to the Supreme Court justices as they begin arguments on the biggest ObamaCare case in three years.

 

With the court prepared to hear oral arguments Wednesday, the GOP is sending the message that the sky won’t fall in if the high court rules against the administration, even though it would deprive about 8 million people of financial assistance to buy healthcare insurance.

 

The effort is intended to make it easier for the court to strike down the subsidies, since Republicans believe the court is more likely to rule in their favor if it believes a plan is in place to limit the fallout.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/234396-republicans-to-high-court-we-have-obamacare-plan

[Geee]

Opening shots fired in Obamacare Supreme Court battle

 

Federal lawmakers staked out partisan positions on the eve of Obamacare’s second major showdown before the Supreme Court, with Democrats urging the justices not to create chaos in more than 30 states, while Republicans mapped out an escape route from the contentious health overhaul.

 

The justices will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that considers whether Congress meant to offer critical Obamacare subsidies to states that use the federally run health exchange, a fallback option for states that declined to set up their own insurance portals.

 

Plaintiffs say Congress limited the subsidies to exchange “established by the state,” or exchanges set up by 16 states and the District of Columbia, while the administration says it never meant to treat states differently.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/3/obamacare-supreme-court-partisan-battle-lines/

[Geee]

The Supreme Court Heard King v. Burwell. Here’s What the Justices Asked About and Commented On.

 

 

 

Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in King v. Burwell, an important case dealing with the Obama administration’s attempt to hand out tax credits not authorized by the text of the law.

 

This is the third appearance of Obamacare before the Supreme Court and the justices were so intrigued by the case that Chief Justice John Roberts extended the time for both sides to make their presentations as the case was being argued.

 

There was a huge scrum of reporters and television cameras on the plaza outside of the Supreme Court building and a large number of protesters, including Tea Partiers protesting over the IRS’s involvement in their health care.

 

In brief, Section 1311 of Obamacare grants tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on exchanges “established by the State.” However, when the majority of states refused to set up Obamacare exchanges, the federal government stepped in and set up federal exchanges. So far so good. However, the IRS then began authorizing tax credits for individuals on the federal exchanges, despite the fact that the text of the law authorizes tax credits only for state-run exchanges.

 

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/04/supreme-court-heard-king-v-burwell-heres-justices-asked-commented/

[Geee]

King case raises practical concerns about Obamacare

 

The Supreme Court usually deals with lofty constitutional questions, but the King v. Burwell arguments Wednesday were also grounded in some practical concerns.

 

If the court upends Obamacare's insurance subsidies in June, blocking them from federal-run insurance marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act, it could be too late for states to create their own marketplaces in time for next year.

 

"In order to have an exchange approved and insurance policies on the exchange ready for the 2016 year, those approvals have to occur by May," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. told the court Wednesday morning.

 

The Obama administration says the health law allows the subsidies to be awarded in all the states regardless of who runs their insurance exchanges. The four individuals bringing the King lawsuit say that's illegal and the court should block the subsidies for low and middle-income Americans if they're shopping on a federal-run exchange instead of one spearheaded by a state itself.

 

At stake are subsidies that 7 to 8 million Americans are currently putting toward health insurance plans. Many can't afford the plans without the federal assistance. The Department of Health and Human Services has said it doesn't have a way to get around a court ruling blocking the subsidies.

 

But one of the court's conservative justices suggested a potential solution: Delay blocking the subsidies until the end of 2015.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/king-case-raises-practical-concerns-about-obamacare/article/2561080

[Valin]

King v. Burwell, the day after
Paul Mirengoff
March 5, 2015

The consensus following oral argument in King v. Burwell is that the votes of two Justices are in play. Based on the questioning, it seems clear that the four-judge liberal bloc will vote to affirm the decision that Obamacare subsidies may be granted to those using the federal exchange. Justices Scalia and Alito appear set to vote to reverse that decision. Justice Thomas did not ask questions — his usual practice — but is considered a likely third vote for reversal.

 

This leaves Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy as the “swing” votes. To reverse — i.e., to rule that subsidies are not permissible on the federal exchange — both would have to vote this way.

 

Note that at least one of the two was probably inclined last year to reverse. Otherwise it’s unlikely that there would have been four votes to hear the case in the absence of a split among the Circuit Courts of Appeal. But that was then; this is now.

 

Chief Justice Roberts said little during the argument that can be interpreted as indicating how he will vote in King. By contrast, Justice Kennedy said a mouthful.

 

(Snip)

[Draggingtree]

King v. Burwell Pits Rule Of Law Against Rule By Decree

 

How the Obama administration has handled Obamacare is at odds with fundamental American concepts like rule of law and separation of powers. The Supreme Court should see that in King v. Burwell.

 

By John Daniel Davidson JUNE 11, 2015

In a speech Tuesday, President Obama said the Affordable Care Act has “now been woven into the fabric of America.”

 

The president’s remarks come as the Supreme Court is preparing this month to decide King v. Burwell, a case that challenges whether the law ever actually authorized subsidies for health coverage paid out through federal exchanges. The details of Burwell reveal the degree to which the Obama administration’s handling of the ACA is ultimately at odds with ideals and aspirations that really are woven into the fabric of America: the rule of law and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/11/king-v-burwell-pits-rule-of-law-against-rule-by-decree/

[Draggingtree]

Is Obama trying to sway SCOTUS?

Posted by neo-neocon ▪ June 11, 2015 at 8:30am

 

The answer? Yes.

 

Atlantic writer Russell Berman wonders:

 

…[Obama’s] decision to champion his signature achievement in such pointed terms just weeks before the high court’s ruling is due raised the question of whether Obama was trying to jawbone the justices at the 11th hour.

 

…“It seems so cynical,” he said, “to want to take coverage away from millions of people; to take care away from people who need it the most; to punish millions with higher costs of care and unravel what’s now been woven into the fabric of America.”…http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/is-obama-trying-to-sway-scotus/