We are being played. Step One: SCOTUS unexpectedly agrees to take a case

[pnwmom]

Last edited Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:10 AM - Edit history (1)

that seeks to dismantle the ACA before the issue (of subsidies for people using Federal exchange) has run its course in the lower courts.

Step 2: All of a sudden, the media are full of reports of how Obama somehow tricked Congress into passing the ACA, based on video clips that have been known about for YEARS.

Think this is just a coincidence? Think again.

How dumb are we going to be this time? Are we just going to swallow the Rethug bait -- hook, line, and sinker?

[MADem]

1. You watch--people you've never heard of are going to post earnest, dramatic, anti-ACA

posts all over DU and call you and anyone else who gripes all sorts of denigrating names for challenging their wingnut talking points.

And people who should know better are going to "me too" along with these "earnest" posts.


Those Republican=Reptiles have got their ground game working. And they're working it here. Caveat emptor!

[fadedrose]

4. All I've heard is "earnest, dramatic, anti-ACA"

ever since it was passed.

Many were helped by it, some were hurt, some are hoping for improvements.

Social Security undergoes unpopular changes frequently, but anybody who talks about ending it is never elected.

[LawDeeDah]

6. +++

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I hope we won't be that dumb. n/t

[fadedrose]

3. Not sure of how it will go

Plenty of Republican governors, mine is one, who accepted the AFA and extended it to Medicaid people as well.

Kentucky is another state whose Dem. governor accepted ACA.

I doubt Scotus will rule to dismantle it, just change it. It affects both parties....

They heard much of it when they heard the case before and ruled it was legal. I'm sure they read and probably understood it, which is more than 99% of the Congresss.

[Ex Lurker]

7. SCOTUS will rule on one small part of the ACA

but it's a critical part, and will eviscerate the entire act if it's overturned. Congress could fix it, but they won't. The whole fate of ACA hinges on the Supreme Court ruling next spring.

[fadedrose]

9. The election of 2016 will have a backlash

Too many people are enrolled now, in both parties...

Even Republican states are accepting AFA funding and offering to the poor under Medicaid.

That SCOTUS thing, isn't that about "lending" people money to buy premiums? I sort of remember reading something like that in ACA details when it first was enacted after it was fixed..

Why didn't the court notice that when they had the Act in front of them for legality? Drumming up business? What part of the act did they rule on that its legality was suspect?

[Zorra]

5. The BS RW propaganda being pushed right now is obvious and sickening. nt

[Cha]

8. Thanks pnwmom for alerting us to the inevitable

[onenote]

10. the Court taking this case was about as unexpected as the sun coming up in the morning

A three judge panel of the Fourth Circuit upheld the law. A three judge panel of the DC Circuit struck it down, but the full circuit agreed to hear it "en banc." Because of the political make up of the DC Circuit, it is widely assumed that the full DC Circuit will uphold the law.

While, strictly speaking, there currently is no split in the circuits (because the DC decision is vacated pending decision en banc) and while it is likely there won't be a split after the full DC Circuit reconsiders the three judge ruling, whether or not the Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear a case is a matter of discretion. In other words, while a split in the circuits makes it much more likely the Court will take a case, it doesn't have to. Moreover, the Court's rules state a number of other situations in which certiorari will be considered appropriate, including when "a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court".

Thus, while the court most often hears more cases when there is a split in the circuits, the decision to take this case is neither inconsistent with its rules or unprecedented. It should be no surprise that the Court had at least four members who wanted to hear the case. (Believe me, if the first two cases had struck down the law, there also is no doubt that the ACA supporters on the court would have voted to grant cert and we'd be cheering them for doing so). Moreover, there are two other cases raising the exchange issue that are pending in other circuits; while predicting the outcome of those cases is tricky, both of those circuits have more repub appointed members (if you include members on senior status) than judges appointed by Democrats. In the case arising in the Tenth Circuit, the District Court just ruled against the law at the end of September. The case from the Seventh Circuit is still pending in the District Court. Given the possibility that one or more of these cases will strike down the law, it is likely that even the Democrats on the Court were not strongly opposed to hearing the case now.

[pnwmom]

12. It wasn't unprecedented but it wasn't as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.

Most observers I'd read expected them to wait for contradictory rulings in the circuit courts.

[onenote]

14. Well, as a second generation member of the Supreme Court bar

and someone who follows the Court closely, this was an absolute given. A lot of "observers" simply take note of the fact that there isn't a circuit split and move on. But that is a far too simplistic way of analyzing a case such as this.

It would be foolish for the justices who are sympathetic to the challenge to the law not to take the case. While the denial of certiorari technically does not carry precedential weight, as an attorney you always like it when the case you cite as support has "cert. denied" as part of the citation. Denying cert and allowing the decision upholding the law to stand isn't a message the justices who are inclined to challenge the decision would want out there (just as, if the shoe was on the other foot, we'd be freaking out if the appeal was of an adverse decision and the four justices we believe are inclined to support the law let it stand while other cases were pending).
Add to the mix the fact that this isn't a clear cut case -- that there already have been two rulings going the other way (one by a three judge panel that is currently vacated pending en banc review and one by a District Court judge). When the Court sees that there is a division, even at the District Court level, it sometimes will take a case before a second decision finishes its trip through the appellate courts. That happened earlier this year on another case I was working on.

[pnwmom]

19. So what do you think is the likely outcome?

Would they have voted to take the case if they didn't think they had a likely 5th vote?

[onenote]

21. I don't know. Nor does anyone else

Indeed, some have speculated that Justices on both sides of the issue may have supported cert so that the case would be decided this term rather than a year or two from now when the make up of the court might be different (one can never predict). Its not as if every case deemed cert worthy is reversed. I believe that, depending on how one measures it, the percentage of cases in which the court grants cert and then affirms is around 40 to 45 percent.

[badtoworse]

23. Thanks for the informative posts on this.

[C Moon]

11. I agree. And thought the same thing.

And you can tell what is being planned when the new senate and congress takes hold, just by watching what the Fox news folks are pushing. They make it soooo obvious.

[bobGandolf]

13. I sure hope not! n/t

[TBF]

15. I'd be ok w/replacing ACA

with single payer. Medicare or Tricare expanded to cover all (basic coverage focusing on well-care).

But the thing that is really crazy is that if the repugs pull this off THEY will get credit for it. There goes 2016.

[pnwmom]

20. Dream on. If this is replaced, it will be with coupon care and high risk pools.

That's the only thing they've ever proposed.

[TBF]

25. See and that's even worse

obviously. That's why I was begrudgingly supportive of ACA. I thought at least if they worked off the current system it would eventually transition into Medicare for all. Nothing happens overnight. I've heard that in Canada it was also gradual.

[TBF]

16. And my next question would be

Do you think we're still living in a democracy?

The debacle of 2000 and the Patriot Act. Elections in which we get carefully vetted candidates of the neo-con/neo-lib variety (especially in positions of leadership).

I think we're dealing with a kindler, gentler fascism than those of the past - but fascism nonetheless.

[Ykcutnek]

17. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

But this reeks of a coordinated effort.

Yes, indeed.

[Atman]

18. Republicans play the long game while we're singing Kumbaya.

Last edited Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

These people don't care. They DON'T CARE. Look at my ancient DU journals, I've said this all along, and it's all coming true today. They gave themselves massive tax breaks so that they'd have all the money when the world crashed. It's gonna happen. But why should they care? They've already rigged the system. They've gerrymandered their districts, and convinced enough Blue Dogs that it's more fun at their cocktail parties than those lame Democrat parties. They bought the game, quite literally. Meanwhile, we're in a drum circle still pretending that they'll just listen to reason.

Sorry, but when you you've got a few billion dollars "reason" means nothing. You just buy what you want. You donate a BILLION dollars to a cause and then sweat it out that you've only got a few billion left? Fat chance. It's just like a casino...if you have the cash to cover every bet on the Roulette wheel, then you'll always win. But if you can only play the $1 minimum bet, you'll always lose.

Democrats seem to think we can just have fun at the Roulette wheel and be nice and we'll eventually win. But the rich Republicans keep putting twenty $100 chips down and then walk away with a fortune.

Democrats are their own worst enemy.

[Darb]

22. Nice analogy. I like it.

It is a much more difficult road for us. We must unite like never before or be beaten down in small groups. Problem is exactly as you state, and then we get betrayed by the likes of Landrieu, Manchin, etc., and it splinters the whole.

We need a plain and simple message and plain and simple goals. What do we want to accomplish? Put it out there and run with it or we will be slaughtered.

The votes are there.

[dawg]

24. The ACA is just a big giveaway to the insurance companies and corporations.

That's why big business is fighting so hard to protect it. Right?

[stevenleser]

26. Yes, the armies of staff congress has can't be expected to analyze a 2000 page bill?

Congress was the unwitting victims here? ROFLMAO