The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Morning Java: ObamaCare Still Under Fire! (Could Fall To Judicial Activism)

Enjoy while the caffeine kicks-in!!!!

How about a reminder of conservative onslaughts against the ACA to go along with your Sumatra,  Kopi Luwak IndonesianKenya AA, Tanzanian, French Roast, Kona Coast, 'Black Ivory' [Thai Elephant Dong],  Jamaica Blue Mountain, Ethiopian Yirgacheffe, Costa Rican, Espresso,  Moyobama Peruvian Organic, Indonesian Blend, Coffee Latte, Kauai Blend (often bitter), Colombian Red Lips, or your Folgers 100% Colombian?

                             Coffees of the World

I will wager you are unaware the most profound and life sustaining law passed since Medicare in the mid 1960s is under threat.  A three judge panel on the on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals can decide within a matter of days to kill a core component of the Affordable Care Act. You might find one fact related to the DC Appeals Court a real terror. If you are savvy regarding legal legal challenges, if you understand that few judicial decisions are rendered without consideration of politics and you aware of the political implications of such decisions, you should have a horrible thought running through your mind. Fact is, the DC Appeals Court is comprised of three judges: two are Republican. Both Republican Judges have expressed sympathy for challenges to the ACA. One Bush appointee is quite vocal about opposition to core foundation of the ACA.

How about a look at the power of two Republican judges?

Twenty million Americans benefiting from the ACA could be tossed a Republican hand grenade with the pin removed seconds ago. 

According to reports from Talking Points Memo the case is a precarious a long shot for appeal.
The case is about whether the Affordable Care Act permits the federally-run insurance exchange to provide subsidies to consumers. Crafted by Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler and Cato's Michael Cannon, it charges that the plain language of the statute confines the provision of premium tax credits to "an Exchange established by the State" -- and not the federal exchange, which serves residents whose states opted not to build one.

The Obama administration won the case in January at the D.C. District Court, where Clinton-appointed Judge Paul L. Friedman labeled the challengers' claim "unpersuasive." He said Congress designed the federal exchange on behalf of states, so it functions as such for the purpose of the law. A ruling against the government, Friedman said, would "violate the basic rule of statutory construction that a court must interpret a statute in light of its history and purpose."
Long shot? We know the power of Republican politics and we have seen the outcomes of republican judges who for one reason or another may preside over cases while influenced by conservative oligarchs. If you need a case for clear delineation of my point accept this case from this past May.

Of course, you know SCOUTS Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito have history of attending conservative events. One such even was reported to be a fund raising event.  As matter of fact, an event in 2011 was "headlined" by Thomas and Alito as Honored Guests. 

We are not suggesting judicial impropriety. We are reminding our readers of conservative/Republican judges who may serve as accommodating judicial activist who serve at the whims of oligarchs who wish to repeal the ACA.
More from TPM 
George H.W. Bush-appointed Judge A. Raymond Randolph antagonized the law and sounded firmly in the opponents' camp, saying that the "text of the statute seems perfectly clear on its face" that premium tax credits are only for state-run exchanges. 
"There's an absurdity principle, but I don't think there a stupidity principle," Randolph said. "If the legislation is just stupid, I don't see that it's up to the court to save it."

So the decision could come down to George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who sounded plainly unconvinced that the statute permits the federal exchange to provide subsidies. He said the legislative history arguments were a "wash" and that the government bears a "special burden" in proving their case.

"Don't you have a special burden to show from legislative history that that doesn't mean what it appears to mean?" Griffith asked the government's lawyer. "If we know the clear purpose of Congress and yet they don't legislative clearly enough to achieve that purpose, is it our job to fix the problem?"

Unlike the birth control challenge, which carries broad legal implications but implicates only a small portion of Obamacare, a loss for the administration in this case, Halbig v. Sebelius, would deal a fatal blow to Affordable Care Act. The federal exchange serves 36 states, and the millions of residents in those states would not be able to afford insurance without subsidies. That would render the individual mandate impracticable and imperil the market regulations that guarantee coverage to consumers regardless of health status.
Sadly, we can no longer expect judicial decisions at the Federal level that are free of judicial activism. Furthermore, it is a tragic state to live with judicial activism straight from the mind and politics of a George W. Bush appointee. We continue to live with the ghost of George W. Bush. without doubt the worse president in modern US History.

No comments :

Post a Comment