March 4, 2015
By Eric Citron
Counsel for the petitioners – (click here) who are seeking to invalidate subsidies in states with federal exchanges – faced tough questioning from the more liberal Justices in the first 20 minutes of today’s argument. In particular, a perceptive hypothetical from Justice Kagan forced the petitioners to concede that context, rather than just the literal text of the statute, is important to understanding it. Once the argument turned to context, however, Justice Kennedy expressed deep concern with a system where the statute would potentially destroy the insurance system in states that chose not to establish their own exchanges – likening this to an unconstitutional form of federal coercion. That made him seem skeptical of the petitioners’ reading of the statute, a hopeful point for defenders of the existing subsidies in all states....
Justice Kennedy was given a great deal of attention in relation to this lawsuit by those that seek a spiral death defeat of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in that his opinion was the decision maker. I found him interesting for a different reason.
He was stating he was concerned for any adverse effects the insurance companies in the states without exchanges that were offering insurance premiums with subsidies to those that have qualified under the federal exchange.
The attorney for the plaintiff stated, "But, that is not in the brief, sir."
Justice Kennedy stated, "I don't have to only consider the information in the brief."
That was very revealing. By the plaintiff's attorney stating he only expected the Justices to consider his plea with information provided them; he also revealed the targeting of four words was intentional to manipulate the outcome with the filing of the Supreme Court.
As Justice Kagan stated; the context was important rather than literal text.
The concern by Justice Kennedy (within the idea of context) is that allowing subsidies in states without exchanges could be used as coercion by the federal government, but, that is not at all intended by the ACA.
What the ACA states is that in states without exchanges the federal government would be accommodating and provide a federal exchange to Americans. The ACA makes it obvious the federal exchanges came secondary in preference to the availability of health care insurance. The law could have used a federal exchange exclusive to providing subsidies, but, that isn't want occurred. The federal ACA provides for states rights in allowing State Exchanges. That means any insurance company in a state could compete for health care insurance.
The idea subsidies would be federal is due to the fact states receive federal monies for Medicaid and Medicare. There is nothing prohibiting states to offering their own subsidies as well. I simply don't see the coercion. It is based in voluntary participation. Coercion implies the law was written to leverage power and it wasn't. Voluntary participation of those that could not otherwise have health care insurance dictates the importance of the law and it's hope for the outcome of all Americans.
We have witnessed deaths of those that do not qualify for subsides in health care in states without exchanges. The Supreme Court needs to consider carefully the outcomes of Americans without health care insurance and not the legalese of parsing words to win political battles.
The ACA has clearly provided Americans with health care and in that delivered it's promise without parsing words in it's context. The USA federal infrastructure has had no problem what so ever in conducting taxes through the IRS. The HHS administrative have been prolific it regulations without referring to parsing language.
The standing of the plaintiffs were also in question to Justice Ginsberg because they were veterans and didn't have an active interest in health care through exchanges. Veterans are provided health care through the VA without cost.
Here again the lawyers for the Plaintiffs were more interested in limiting the knowledge base of the Supreme Court for a 'designer outcome.'
...Two of the plaintiffs are military veterans, she said, a third would qualify for Medicare soon, and the fourth might qualify for a hardship exemption from the law – taking fines and penalties off the table.
Michael
Carvin, arguing on their behalf, said lower courts that heard the case
on its way up the judicial ladder never raised the standing issue. But
at least one plaintiff satisfied the 'standing' test, he insisted.
'The Court has an obligation to look into on its own,' Ginsburg countered.
I would expect the majority Republican House and Senate to pass laws limiting the scope of the Supreme Court when considering a case. That is anti-constitutional requiring an Amendment process not a simple majority of the Legislature.
It was a political lawsuit, in that, veterans are a right wing soft target. No one is going to tell me the lawyers who are frequent flyers to the Supreme Court was naive to their own observations regarding content, context, parsing words and faux plaintiffs. This is a political document in hopes at the very least the soft targets would win loyalty of the Justices. The reality these attorneys created a designer lawsuit against the ACA passed in majority of both houses and a super majority in the US Senate in 2010 is more indication aspirational corruption within the court system.
I think Justice Kennedy accommodated the alternative the federal government was coercing the states as cited in the lawsuit to protect the process and reputations. If that was not the reasoning of the plaintiff lawyers then what was the purpose at all?
The political purpose of the lawsuit is obvious. It is not unusual for judges to protect plaintiffs and defendants when lawyers are misguided in their application of the justice system, but, that rarely happens with lawyers so much as Pro Se plaintiffs and defendants. How rare? How many convictions of death row inmates are found to have inadequate defense?
It is well known the political right wing, both in elected officials and those that purchase their power have frequently been disappointed in their outcomes at the level of the Supreme Court, ie: Same Sex Marriage. I fully believe this case and the way the plaintiffs lawyers presented the case is to demonstrate to the wealthy of the right wing where the deficit exists in dominating the lives of Americans. For them it is a quality control issue. In other words, why don't their monies buy what they paid for?
I would expect the majority Republican House and Senate to pass laws limiting the scope of the Supreme Court when considering a case. That is anti-constitutional requiring an Amendment process not a simple majority of the Legislature.
It was a political lawsuit, in that, veterans are a right wing soft target. No one is going to tell me the lawyers who are frequent flyers to the Supreme Court was naive to their own observations regarding content, context, parsing words and faux plaintiffs. This is a political document in hopes at the very least the soft targets would win loyalty of the Justices. The reality these attorneys created a designer lawsuit against the ACA passed in majority of both houses and a super majority in the US Senate in 2010 is more indication aspirational corruption within the court system.
I think Justice Kennedy accommodated the alternative the federal government was coercing the states as cited in the lawsuit to protect the process and reputations. If that was not the reasoning of the plaintiff lawyers then what was the purpose at all?
The political purpose of the lawsuit is obvious. It is not unusual for judges to protect plaintiffs and defendants when lawyers are misguided in their application of the justice system, but, that rarely happens with lawyers so much as Pro Se plaintiffs and defendants. How rare? How many convictions of death row inmates are found to have inadequate defense?
It is well known the political right wing, both in elected officials and those that purchase their power have frequently been disappointed in their outcomes at the level of the Supreme Court, ie: Same Sex Marriage. I fully believe this case and the way the plaintiffs lawyers presented the case is to demonstrate to the wealthy of the right wing where the deficit exists in dominating the lives of Americans. For them it is a quality control issue. In other words, why don't their monies buy what they paid for?
