Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.
There should be more than sparks flying as Obama’s health care debacle was even a bigger fraud perpetrated on Americans than Obama’s “So-called election.”
It’s bad enough that there have been question regarding Chief Justice, John Roberts flip-flop and changing his vote to protect a 17% GDP take over by the federal government.
If the Fourth Branch of government can’t be trusted to uphold the Constitution then we have become a country governed by zealots and would be tin pot dictators, just the way Obama wants it.
The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision reaches much farther than ObamaCare standing or falling, it may well be the firstserious test of our Constitutionally driven Republic since the Civil War.
Roberts Nearly Silent as Partisan Sparks Fly In Obamacare Case.
Anthony Kennedy may be the key to Obamacare’s survival.
By Sam Baker
March 4, 2015 Chief Justice John Roberts kept his cards close to the chest Wednesday as the Supreme Court weighed a potentially devastating challenge to Obamacare.
Roberts, who is seen the most likely swing vote in the case, asked relatively few questions and gave no hints about how he’s likely to rule in the high-profile challenge to Obamacare’s insurance subsidies.
But the White House may not need Roberts’s vote: Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed at least open to part of the administration’s argument, if not entirely sold on it.
“It seems to me that under your argument, there’s a serious constitutional problem,” Kennedy said to Michael Carvin, the attorney who argued against the subsidies Wednesday.
The rest of the Court’s conservative wing seemed willing to invalidate those subsidies in most of the country—and hand the law’s critics the body blow they were denied in 2012, when Roberts cast the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate.
A loss for the White House would significantly damage Obamacare: Some 7 million to 8 million people would likely lose their coverage. It also would weaken Obamacare’s individual mandate and its employer mandate, and could send states’ insurance markets into a tailspin.
The challengers in King v. Burwell argues that Obamacare provides its subsidies—which help low-and middle-income consumers cover part of their premiums—only to people who live in states that set up their own insurance exchanges. The IRS is acting illegally by making subsidies available to residents of the 34 states that punted their exchanges to the federal government, the challengers argue.
They point to a section of the law that refers to subsidies flowing through “an Exchange established by the State.” That text alone should clearly limit the subsidies to state-based exchanges, they say.
But the challengers have had a hard time persuading lower courts that Congress actually intended to limit subsidies to certain states.
The Justice Department argues that the text of the statute, read in its entirety, clearly treats state- and federally run exchanges the same. The law directs states to set up their own marketplaces, but if they don’t, it directs the Health and Human Services Department to establish “such Exchange” in their absence.
That equivalence shows that Congress intended to treat all exchanges the same for all practical purposes—including subsidiea—the Justice Department argues.
Lower courts split on the issue: On the same day last summer, one federal Appeals Court ruled that subsidies were illegal in federally run exchanges, while another deferred to the IRS’s interpretation and allowed the payments to continue.