IRS too far in interpreting ACA Appeals Court Rules

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorGrowl, Jul 22, 2014.

  1. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    Also - saying if you dont set up exchanges, then you dont get subsidies and then still giving the subsidies to everyone anyways = worst "strongarming" tactic ever.
  2. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,526
    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,073
    What debates? The ACA was written 100% by one party. I guess the Dems could have been debating themselves. We should ask the Leader of the House what her interpretation of the law was at the time, but she already told us she didn't even read the darn thing. I guess we will have to go by what the words say as written in the law. Subsidies to only those States with their own exchanges. Pretty clear as day. But I'm not as near as smart as those in Congress so I'll wait to hear what the Supreme Court has to say.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,526
    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,073
    Yep. Didn't work, hence the current problem.
  4. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    You're saying the intent was to deny subsidies to states that didnt set up exchanges. This seems to be contradicted by the twin facts that a) the people drafting the law never expressed this intent at all and b) the fact that the subsidies were offered to people buying insurance from Federal exchanges from the get go.
  5. persegator
    Offline

    persegator Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2014
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +154
    It's kind of ironic. The law is thousands of pages long, presumably to try and prevent ambiguity, yet all it ends up doing is creating more ambiguity and more opportunities for challenges. The quality of the writing is sacrificed in favor of quantity. Even if the government prevails (which they probably will) it will be because the court views the law as ambiguous, rather than clear (as it should be).

    Perhaps next time Congress will try writing the bill themselves instead of outsourcing the job to K Street. I can't help but think that if they all actually read the damn thing with a discerning eye that these sorts of discrepancies would be have been figured out before the law was passed.
  6. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,964
    Likes Received:
    615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,854
    So party above the law? That's not the way the courts were designed.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,045
    Likes Received:
    515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,214
    Agreed. You're welcome to lecture those two judges on whether that influenced their decision if you want.

    That being said, while I think it's fairly clear the ACA is ambiguous in this regard (the discussion of the federal government establishing "such exchanges" and the section that defines all exchanges as being government or non-profit entities "established by the state" gets you there IMO), I wasn't necessarily saying that politics is the sole decider of this question, just noting the split and that, if it was going to split on party lines, they got lucky getting a full half of the judges appointed by their party on this panel.
  8. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,964
    Likes Received:
    615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,854
    I don't care about what party these judges ar
    The judges are to rule on what the law says. They took an oath. We will see. If it comes back 7-4 we will know the judges aren't doing what they took an oath for. Judges aren't there to interpret the law. They are there to rule on how the law is written.
  9. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,526
    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,073
    But that is how the law was written. This is the issue isn't it? It is written exactly that way in the ACA. That's why it will soon be in front of the supreme court. The Administration then can argue what it really meant, and the court can then ask - if that is the case - why was it not written that way?
  10. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    No, the issue is whether one section of the law is ambiguous or unambiguous in its drafting. To arrive at the idea that the intent/wording is unambiguous as you say, then that relies on a reading of one particular section, devoid of any context, such as the other parts of the law that contradict the idea that only states setting up exchanges were to receive subsidies, not to mention the public record surrounding the law. Not once did anyone publically argue that this was the intent of the law. To arrive at such a conclusion, you are arguing that the law was purposefully written so as to fail its stated intent.

    Basically, the conservatives are like George from Seinfeld arguing with the bubble boy that the card says "Moops" instead of "Moors," and that the makers of Trivial Pursuit intentionally put "Moops" in to cause such an argument.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,459
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,726
    Oh BS, wgb. 36B does not contain a typo. It's not an accidental omission or misplaced comma.
  12. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,892
    Likes Received:
    1,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,616
    it had to get passed before they lost control of the senate. there was no time to read it.

    this is just something else the dems will not even admit. it was passed flawed because they knew they couldn't get it fixed in time after kennedy died.

    the signature legislation from what promised to be the most open and transparent administration ever was written by a bunch of industry lobbyists and passed in a rush to beat a political setback with no public review or comment period.
  13. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    "I'm sorry, the card says Moops."
  14. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    Well, the idea that it was passed hastily to circumvent possible filibuster actually supports the argument that it is in fact a drafting error, and not an intentional provision of the law.
  15. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.de/2012/11/the-legally-nonsensical-rearguard.html

  16. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,459
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,726
    "Moops" is a typo". Tell ya what -- why don't you post a link of a photo with the "and Federal government" key on your keyboard.
  17. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,459
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,726
    It was hastily shoved through to avoid the near certainty of defeat because of the widespread lack of popular support. That's hardly a bragging point; Obamacare was achieved by legislative roofie.
  18. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    How do you know Moops was a typo? Oh thats right, you looked at the context and the intent by refering to other text (i.e. the question). Which is exactly what proponents of the law have argued, see above.
  19. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    I'm just saying hasty/sloppy passage is no argument that the intent was unambiguous and clear. It actually undermines the already weak argument that this is in fact what the drafters specifically intended.
  20. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,459
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,726
    Are you a serious human being, engaging in this line of reasoning? I mean, do you take this into other settings in life? I am genuinely offended at someone making a serious comparison here between a same-word error of letter transposition or phonetic confusion with... an entire layer of government being entirely excluded from statutory language. This is what I'd wait for blake to come around posting.

Share This Page