|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13725
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | Ahhhh. How about dem courts.
Two rulings today: one, against Obamacare; the other, in favor. |
I read the DC Circuit decision. From a legal perspective, it's an interesting issue. I thought the dissent had the better argument, though. We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. |
How long before it reaches the Supreme Court? Next term?
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ContagiousInspiration wrote: | I understand your disdain for my harping on this issue but that is why it is so upsetting to me.. USA kisses Israels ass and lets them murder Palestinians left and right and gives them billions and billions of dollars and controls the media reports about which side is the good guy etc
All I can do is offer a dissenting voice with facts  |
That's just it. You aren't simply a dissenting voice with facts. You're an agenda driven zealot - and that's from someone who views you as an old friend of sorts.
I know your message is intended to come from the right place and I get your passion for your convictions. But it all goes for naught when you clearly have no iteration of pretending to have anything resembling objectivity. Throw in the fact that your "facts" are mostly hyperbolic and opinionated rants based on a modicum of convenient truth and you really become your own worst enemy.
And again, this is coming from someone who actually agrees with you in spirit and sees you as a decent and likable guy despite your eccentric nature. |
I sincerely appreciate the constructive feedback and encouragement in spirit.
I know I don't do my best discussing such emotionally charged topics.. I feel as though others could easily see the hyper-elitism in the Zionist mindset and their influence in America that leads this country to support and defend almost anything from them..
*I will work on understanding how to address this is topic through other peoples eyes also.
I just want to share one last story that was the proverbial straw that broke my back and forced me to investigate the Israelis more
They were doing a house to house search with helmet cams. An IDF soldier leaked the video.
IDF have explosive laden battering rams.. The Palestinian woman opened the door just a little ways leaving the chain lock on.. The soldiers blew the door open slamming her into the wall so hard that she was knocked unconscious and bleeding profusely..and her two children and husband begged for them to get an ambulance..IIRC electricity and communications were cutoff by IDF. The mother was lying there on the floor behind the door and they just kicked at the door when they walked by to enter the home.. Then to get into the next home they used the battering ram on the adjoining walls between apartments and blew a hole into the neighbors house...
Seeing that and hearing how they call the Palestinians "dirty rats" .. Sent me over the edge..
I will work on it..because it truthfully drives me insane sometimes... How the world only calls out those who are being oppressed and treated so inhumanely at all times by their neighbors.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ted
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3477
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This Land Is Mine, a quick history of the Middle East (cartoon). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rak_90046
Starting Rotation
Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 905
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="ContagiousInspiration"]Such a joy to watch Wolf Blitzer be unbiased.
Saying the death toll for Palestinians in a one lump sum
Then the death toll for Israelis he makes sure to point out the two civilian casualties and they turn to footage of the total devastation and annihilation of the place where there was an Israeli civilian killed...
Saying in a joking way? I think He's doing an excellent job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | Ahhhh. How about dem courts.
Two rulings today: one, against Obamacare; the other, in favor. |
I read the DC Circuit decision. From a legal perspective, it's an interesting issue. I thought the dissent had the better argument, though. We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. |
How long before it reaches the Supreme Court? Next term? |
The government will probably move for rehearing en banc (full court review) in the D.C. Circuit. Given that there is now a circuit split, that could happen. Otherwise, I'd expect the case the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and decide the case next term.
I read the Fourth Circuit case. The court acknowledges that this is a close issue, but its logic seemed solid.
For anyone who is interested, I'll give a brief explanation of the issue. The media often mangles legal issues, so this may be different from some of the things you've read.
The ACA requires states to create insurance exchanges. If a state elects not to create an exchange, then the federal government must create an exchange for that state. That exchange is Healthcare.gov. Only 16 states and the District of Columbia created exchanges.
The ACA provides for subsidies (in particular, tax credits) for qualifying people who purchase insurance on an exchange. If there are no subsidies, then no one in the state is required to buy insurance.
The lawsuit arises out of some loose language in the statute. I will skip the boring details, but the calculation of the subsidies is dependent on "coverage months." A “coverage month” is one in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a health plan “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311.” The argument is that Healthcare.gov is not "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311," so there can be no subsidies for people who enroll through that exchange. Therefore, the argument goes, people in states that have no exchanges do not need to comply with the ACA.
The IRS issued regulations that interpreted the ACA differently. The plaintiffs sued the IRS to challenge the validity of the regulations. The D.C. Circuit struck them down, but the Fourth Circuit upheld them.
You can see the problem with the argument. It is a clever attempt at a legal "gotcha" argument. Everyone knows how the statute was intended to operate, but the plaintiffs are trying to gut the statute based on a quirk in the wording. However, the courts are generally bound by a statute as written, and they are not empowered to rewrite the statute. When there is an ambiguity, an administration agency (in this case, the IRS) may be able to fix the problem with regulations, but the regulations must be based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
In other words, everyone knows that the IRS is doing what Congress intended, but the argument is that the plain language of the statute ties the IRS's hands. It's a purely technical argument, but those sorts of arguments have some force in this context.
The government's argument is that the ACA provides that, if a state does not establish an exchange, the federal government will establish an exchange for the state under section 1311. The government argues that the alternative exchange was intended to be included in the subsidies, and it points to some other language in the statute that supports that interpretation. Therefore, according to the government, the IRS's interpretation of the ACA was reasonable.
So far, 4 of 6 circuit judges have sided with the government on this issue. Stay tuned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | Ahhhh. How about dem courts.
Two rulings today: one, against Obamacare; the other, in favor. |
I read the DC Circuit decision. From a legal perspective, it's an interesting issue. I thought the dissent had the better argument, though. We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. |
How long before it reaches the Supreme Court? Next term? |
First, the Obama administration wants this to go back for a the full DC Court Hearing. It is believed the outcome will then be reversed and will match the (3-0) decision from the Fourth Circuit Court.
At that point, there will (likely) be two District Courts with the same decision. The SCOTUS, would then not likely take this up, unless, of course, they are bound and determined to act as the Supreme Legislators, which also wouldn't surprise me with this ideologically driven court, aka FiveFour. It would be brazen, though not unexpected, to reverse two courts by one vote, especially if both were decisive decisions, and considering the chaos and damage to everyone in those 36 states and everyone in the medical industry including insurance providers in the Federal Exchange.
And yes, there would be but one more five-four decision.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Wilt wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | Ahhhh. How about dem courts.
Two rulings today: one, against Obamacare; the other, in favor. |
I read the DC Circuit decision. From a legal perspective, it's an interesting issue. I thought the dissent had the better argument, though. We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. |
How long before it reaches the Supreme Court? Next term? |
The government will probably move for rehearing en banc (full court review) in the D.C. Circuit. Given that there is now a circuit split, that could happen. Otherwise, I'd expect the case the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and decide the case next term.
I read the Fourth Circuit case. The court acknowledges that this is a close issue, but its logic seemed solid.
For anyone who is interested, I'll give a brief explanation of the issue. The media often mangles legal issues, so this may be different from some of the things you've read.
The ACA requires states to create insurance exchanges. If a state elects not to create an exchange, then the federal government must create an exchange for that state. That exchange is Healthcare.gov. Only 16 states and the District of Columbia created exchanges.
The ACA provides for subsidies (in particular, tax credits) for qualifying people who purchase insurance on an exchange. If there are no subsidies, then no one in the state is required to buy insurance.
The lawsuit arises out of some loose language in the statute. I will skip the boring details, but the calculation of the subsidies is dependent on "coverage months." A “coverage month” is one in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a health plan “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311.” The argument is that Healthcare.gov is not "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311," so there can be no subsidies for people who enroll through that exchange. Therefore, the argument goes, people in states that have no exchanges do not need to comply with the ACA.
The IRS issued regulations that interpreted the ACA differently. The plaintiffs sued the IRS to challenge the validity of the regulations. The D.C. Circuit struck them down, but the Fourth Circuit upheld them.
You can see the problem with the argument. It is a clever attempt at a legal "gotcha" argument. Everyone knows how the statute was intended to operate, but the plaintiffs are trying to gut the statute based on a quirk in the wording. However, the courts are generally bound by a statute as written, and they are not empowered to rewrite the statute. When there is an ambiguity, an administration agency (in this case, the IRS) may be able to fix the problem with regulations, but the regulations must be based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
In other words, everyone knows that the IRS is doing what Congress intended, but the argument is that the plain language of the statute ties the IRS's hands. It's a purely technical argument, but those sorts of arguments have some force in this context.
The government's argument is that the ACA provides that, if a state does not establish an exchange, the federal government will establish an exchange for the state under section 1311. The government argues that the alternative exchange was intended to be included in the subsidies, and it points to some other language in the statute that supports that interpretation. Therefore, according to the government, the IRS's interpretation of the ACA was reasonable.
So far, 4 of 6 circuit judges have sided with the government on this issue. Stay tuned. |
I understand the 2-1 decision, even though I think they went to extremes to achieve it. I understand and typically agree with the judicial philosophy of formalism or texturalism, to which Scalia says he ascribes, but to which he only does when the ends support his ends. With this philosophy, the idea is to not look at intent*, but at the meaning of the words as written, and as to the constitution, as they would be interpreted by a reasonable and informed person of the period.
But here, with something this fresh, with the authors and signers available; with this Hail Mary issue never being contended until all the reasonable attempts failed; with the consistency of the words and actions of all those pushing this legislation; with the implementation never being questioned one way or another regarding which exchange would be subsidized; with there being no debate on this particular issue, on the floor of Congress or even in the media, there can be no doubt that this was just careless language and that there is no question as to intent.
*Far too often intent can be ambiguous, and one Congressman might see one intent, reading words literally, and another, reading into the words to see another meaning entirely: Both signed on but according to entirely different understandings.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Funny how we always hear about complaints of activist judges from the right, but here is yet another case where every single person involved understands the law and its intent, and yet two judges denied that on purely partisan grounds.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | Funny how we always hear about complaints of activist judges from the right, but here is yet another case where every single person involved understands the law and its intent, and yet two judges denied that on purely partisan grounds. |
Possibly, but it really is a close question. A judge may believe that Congress intended XYZ, but the courts still must enforce the law as written. As Ribeye says, legislative intent can be hard to discern. In this case, the courts looked for direct evidence of legislative intent on this specific point in the committee reports and floor debates, but they didn't find much. When Congress uses specific language (as was the case here), there isn't much room for an administrative agency (the IRS here) to vary the text of the statute. The general response of the courts is "Congress screwed it up, Congress needs to fix it."
The question boils down to whether, when read as a whole, the language of the ACA had sufficient ambiguity to give the IRS the power to interpret the language, as opposed to applying it literally. I think that the four judges have the better side of the argument than the two, but the two judges have considerable force to their position.
From the standpoint of legal realism, you can see why judges -- irrespective of politics -- do not want to let a "gotcha" argument gut a major, controversial piece of legislation. It would be a different matter if this was a constitutional argument, but that ship has sailed. This is a pure question of statutory interpretation that has nothing to do with civil rights or federalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I get your argument, and outside of a particular case, it makes total sense. But no one involved or observing this from any even remotely informed perspective has any true sense of the intent of the subsidies. They are clearly part and parcel of exchanges. The entire reason for the federal exchange at all was to keep states from effectively opting out by not setting up exchanges. I would bet my life savings that if you could force the truth from them, bit judges voting to strike this down would admit to being quite clear what was being mandated, but being willing to use a gotcha technicality for a political purpose.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, even if this goes to the FiveFour Court and they vote, five-four as they typically do on controversial issues, it seems to me that all any state (that wanted to) would need to do, is create a shell that was called a state exchange that tied directly into the federal exchange to accomplish exactly what was accomplished prior.
Those states that did not want to do so would not have to, just as with the added Medicaid provision in the ACA.
The, typically, blue states would receive Federal subsidies, while the, typically, red states would not.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13725
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Funny how we always hear about complaints of activist judges from the right, but here is yet another case where every single person involved understands the law and its intent, and yet two judges denied that on purely partisan grounds. |
Possibly, but it really is a close question. A judge may believe that Congress intended XYZ, but the courts still must enforce the law as written. As Ribeye says, legislative intent can be hard to discern. In this case, the courts looked for direct evidence of legislative intent on this specific point in the committee reports and floor debates, but they didn't find much. When Congress uses specific language (as was the case here), there isn't much room for an administrative agency (the IRS here) to vary the text of the statute. The general response of the courts is "Congress screwed it up, Congress needs to fix it."
The question boils down to whether, when read as a whole, the language of the ACA had sufficient ambiguity to give the IRS the power to interpret the language, as opposed to applying it literally. I think that the four judges have the better side of the argument than the two, but the two judges have considerable force to their position.
From the standpoint of legal realism, you can see why judges -- irrespective of politics -- do not want to let a "gotcha" argument gut a major, controversial piece of legislation. It would be a different matter if this was a constitutional argument, but that ship has sailed. This is a pure question of statutory interpretation that has nothing to do with civil rights or federalism. |
I read something regarding the "chevron principle" and how it allows an agency to resolve ambiguities in a statute. Julian Epstein also argued for that last night on MSNBC. .. Is that a good argument relating to this issue?
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker4andmore
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2002
Posts: 1056
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Israel is pushing Palestine into the sea. Israel is whipping Palestine off the map.Israel refuses to recognize Palestines right to exist.
Palestine has the right to defend itself.
Engaging is a decision that you know in all likelihood is going to kill hundreds of innocent people just to kill a few terrorists is absolutely disgusting. Its collectivized punishment and communistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker4andmore
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2002
Posts: 1056
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | Such a joy to watch Wolf Blitzer be unbiased.
Saying the death toll for Palestinians in a one lump sum
Then the death toll for Israelis he makes sure to point out the two civilian casualties and they turn to footage of the total devastation and annihilation of the place where there was an Israeli civilian killed...
Gaza just sort of seems like that place where Israel tests their weaponry and military tactics.. |
Former (and current) AIPAC henchmen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I caught most of this segment last night on the Chris Hayes show, All In, with Rula Jebreal and her frustration with the American coverage of this conflict:
| Quote: |
She said the media is supporting a “destructive” Israeli policy and gives way too much airtime to Israeli officials as opposed to Palestinian ones. Hayes shot back that firstly, it’s been hard for the networks to book Hamas officials in the first place, and secondly, airtime may not be as good a metric to judge with as toughness of the interviews themselves.
Jebreal maintained that they’re not “being interviewed in the same way” and the media’s abdicating its responsibility by essentially taking a side. |
Read the article and watch the full interview here, via MSNBC:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-who-called-out-israel-coverage-returns-for-heated-talk-with-chris-hayes/
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cisternachyli
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 2274
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Laker4andmore wrote: | Israel is pushing Palestine into the sea. Israel is whipping Palestine off the map.Israel refuses to recognize Palestines right to exist.
Palestine has the right to defend itself.
Engaging is a decision that you know in all likelihood is going to kill hundreds of innocent people just to kill a few terrorists is absolutely disgusting. Its collectivized punishment and communistic. |
um there are more than a "few" terrorists in Gaza. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | I read something regarding the "chevron principle" and how it allows an agency to resolve ambiguities in a statute. Julian Epstein also argued for that last night on MSNBC. .. Is that a good argument relating to this issue? |
Right, that's what the case is all about -- the Chevron deference rule. The question is whether there is an ambiguity in the statute. An administrative agency can't use regulations to amend a statute. It can only resolve ambiguities -- and the fact that the words of the statute do not match the intent of the statute is not an ambiguity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
32
Retired Number
Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 73062
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rak_90046
Starting Rotation
Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 905
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Laker4andmore wrote: | | ContagiousInspiration wrote: | Such a joy to watch Wolf Blitzer be unbiased.
Saying the death toll for Palestinians in a one lump sum
Then the death toll for Israelis he makes sure to point out the two civilian casualties and they turn to footage of the total devastation and annihilation of the place where there was an Israeli civilian killed...
Gaza just sort of seems like that place where Israel tests their weaponry and military tactics.. |
Former (and current) AIPAC henchmen |
Who is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rak_90046
Starting Rotation
Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 905
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Laker4andmore wrote: | Israel is pushing Palestine into the sea. Israel is whipping Palestine off the map.Israel refuses to recognize Palestines right to exist.
Palestine has the right to defend itself.
Engaging is a decision that you know in all likelihood is going to kill hundreds of innocent people just to kill a few terrorists is absolutely disgusting. Its collectivized punishment and communistic. |
You got it wrong. You have to switch it. Its Hamas, not Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul Ryan Makes New Poverty Pitch
| Quote: | | The big idea in Ryan's plan would be to consolidate most of the federal government's anti-poverty programs, such as food stamps and housing vouchers, into one program that states could oversee and coordinate more closely. Ryan's "Opportunity Grant" would be voluntary -- states that want to try it could submit their own plan, so long as it includes "work requirements" for the able-bodied poor. |
I am interested to see what the objections to this will be. At first glance, and realizing the devil can be in the details, it sounds like a reasonable idea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5616609.html
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | Paul Ryan Makes New Poverty Pitch
| Quote: | | The big idea in Ryan's plan would be to consolidate most of the federal government's anti-poverty programs, such as food stamps and housing vouchers, into one program that states could oversee and coordinate more closely. Ryan's "Opportunity Grant" would be voluntary -- states that want to try it could submit their own plan, so long as it includes "work requirements" for the able-bodied poor. |
I am interested to see what the objections to this will be. At first glance, and realizing the devil can be in the details, it sounds like a reasonable idea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5616609.html |
One of the major reasons that I bailed on the GOP, after having been a Republican for my whole life, is that the GOP quit trying to do things like this. Instead of trying to reform these sorts of programs, the GOP wasted its time demonizing the poor, talking about socialism, and pushing tax breaks for the rich.
As you say, the devil is in the details, and this may be a conservative Trojan horse. Still, it's refreshing to see someone from the GOP actually trying to be creative, as opposed to trying to repeal Obamacare for the thousandth time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13725
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds like big government to me.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeRe-Loaded
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 14944
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is who you turn to to form your opinions about life and death matters? Yikes... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
