D.C. Circuit Orders Rehearing of Obamacare Tax Credit Case Halbig v. Burwell

This morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Halbig v. Burwell, one of four cases challenging the lawfulness of an IRS rule authorizing tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for the purchase of health insurance in federal exchanges.  According to the challengers, the IRS rule is illegal because, among other things, the PPACA only authorizes tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of insurance on exchanges "established by the State," and the PPACA expressly defines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.

Comments

[Jackand Ace]

And that means it will almost assuredly lose with the full court hearing it. Which then means that two Appeals courts will have ruled in favor of the funding of the ACA, consequently diminishing any real chance the Supreme Court will even hear it.

[Mock-star]

Which is completely sad that not one, but two appeals courts will rule that the law doesnt say exactly what it plainly does.

[ant1sthenes]

Well, it provides more justification for everyone else ignoring the law too.

[JWatts]

The Left in this country doesn't seem to care what the Law says anymore. They want what they want and will do whatever it takes to get their desire.

[some guy]

Hm. I wonder how many other laws we can overturn by getting a court to ignore the plain language of the law.

[vicbritpii]

my neighbor's step-aunt makes $88 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for seven months but last month her pay was $13553 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can find out more ....

============ http://www.netjob70.com

[Butler]

Has anyone else noticed that media, particularly the MSM, always mentions that the panel that overturned the federal exchange subsidies had a "conservative majority," suggesting that partisanship played a role? Conversely, that same media never suggests that the liberal majority panel that ruled in favor of federal exchange subsidies (in contravention of the plain language) is doing anything but attempting to correctly interpret the law.

Pretty sure there's a word for that . . .

[Jackand Ace]

No, never noticed it. That's because every outlet tells you the make-up, and thus political orientation, of each court.

Here, you don't get more left than Huffington Post:

"In the first appellate ruling on July 22, two Republican-appointed judges ruled against the administration, with a Democratic appointee dissenting. They said that under the law, financial aid can be provided only in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. The unanimous Richmond panel that upheld the law's financing was made up of three Democrats.

The Washington court that will hear the case has seven judges appointed by Democratic presidents, including four by Obama, and four by Republican presidents. Two senior judges on the initial panel, one Democrat and one Republican, also may choose to weigh in, under appeals court rules."

Do note they tell you of the Democrat appointees and Republican appointees.

[JWatts]

You didn't address Butler's point. He didn't say the media doesn't report the affiliation of the judges. He said: "Conversely, that same media never suggests that the liberal majority panel that ruled in favor of federal exchange subsidies (in contravention of the plain language) is doing anything but attempting to correctly interpret the law."

[Jackand Ace]

I missed HuffPo doing that...show me where.

[Jackand Ace]

Or show me anywhere that happens...and don't pick out an opinion piece. I read nothing but opinion pieces here telling me how liberal judges never interpret the law correctly.

[Jackand Ace]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....65310.html