Subsidies through Healthcare.gov may be illegal.

[bullmoose88]

Not a surprise. 

[bullmoose88]

 Until there are perp-walks, prosecutions and claw-backs for the taxpayer; this is merely justice passing wind. I have not seen any results of the Obama formed, “deemed illegal” labor relations board”. You know damn well Obama hearing this decision, at first, said, “So, this just some needed fundraiser material”.
 I do understand that Obama has given out a lot of presents and, it is going to take a while to unwrap everything, the thing of it is; everybody already knows what his packages are, it’s just what to do with them or Him is the issue.
 BTW, I’m looking forward to see if any states (especially those bordering Texas) will join the fight, forming the southern alliance to defend the US citizen.

[bullmoose88]

4th circuit sided with the government on nearly the same issue.

[bullmoose88]

There's also a potential standing issue.  I doubt that the law is worded so that the fines are directly dependent upon the existence of subsidized insurance in order to be levied.  It would seem far more likely that if there is a defect in the law, the fines and the subsidies are both dependent upon the existence of state-run exchanges, it which case plaintiffs could have standing to challenge being fined, but they would have no standing to challenge the subsidies.

It seems that both the fourth circuit and dc circuit didn't find the standing arguments availing, right?

[bullmoose88]

Well yes, there is now a circuit split but the 4th circuit one is unlikely to change position whereas there's likely to be an en banc review in the DC circuit. That, in my view, will likely lead to a reversal and no split. Stay tuned.

[bullmoose88]

Well yes, there is now a circuit split but the 4th circuit one is unlikely to change position whereas there's likely to be an en banc review in the DC circuit. That, in my view, will likely lead to a reversal and no split. Stay tuned.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   

Because politics? Because a sitting US President should not be accorded the privilege of appointing the positions that a US President has the right to appoint if you don't agree with him?

Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking this. I swear!

[bullmoose88]

I wouldn't be concerned about SCOTUS. I don't think Kennedy or Roberts would side with dismantling this thing over an obvious technical error. Alito might not either.

I think it is all up to Roberts. My impression is that Kennedy is dead set against the Act.