Author Topic: It's time for White House to start sweating over legal challenge to Obamacare subsidies  (Read 186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,734
  • How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Trump
"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."  -  President Donald J Trump

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!.....
...They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security
       Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump 5:35 AM - Sep 14, 2017

Offline Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,734
  • How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Trump
"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."  -  President Donald J Trump

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!.....
...They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security
       Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump 5:35 AM - Sep 14, 2017

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
No sweat, they already have a plan.  Chuckie Hagel is paying for it by canceling Tomahawk missile contracts, discharging military members left and right, retiring aircraft and squadrons, and disassembling the Pentagon Admiral by General...........

Remember AlGore's "Peace Dividend"??.......

« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 09:07:41 PM by Chieftain »

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,263
  • TBR Illuminati
It would be nice if the judges engaged in a little more nuanced textual analysis, although Judge Randolph appears to have made a good start.  Quite simply, the case hinges on the word "by" and whether that word includes the meanings "for" and/or "on behalf of".  If "by" does, then the term can be legitimately construed as including the implied phrase "established for a state" or "established on behalf of a state".  If "by" does not, then the government's argument loses.

A careful textual analysis of just the ACA itself demonstrates that Congress used the term "by" in a way that was different from "for" and from "on behalf of".  In particular, when Congress intended to use the meanings of two of those terms together, it expressly did so by using the compound terms "by or for" and "by or on behalf of".  If "by" necessarily included the meanings of "for" and "on behalf of" then the term "by or on behalf of" would be meaningless, specifically, the subphrase "or on behalf of" would be what's called "mere surplusage" - words that do not add anything to the meaning of the text in which they're used.

It necessarily follows from a careful textual analysis that the phrase "established by a State" means only "created or brought into existence through the action of a State."  As such, the phrase unambiguously excludes any sort of entity established by the federal government for, or on behalf of, a state.

I'm rather disappointed in the judges who have ruled against the plaintiffs here; they clearly do not understand how to read a statute properly.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf