Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As many of us had stated would happen, the earlier DC ruling by a 3-judge panel that decided that Obamacare Federal website subsidies were illegal has been set aside by the full panel of the DC appeals court - which means that ALL members of the panel will re-hear the case - and considering the makeup of that panel likely means the original 3-panel (2 Republicans and 1 Democrat) courts' decision will probably be reversed - which should settle the matter. Bad news for the anti-Obamacare folks.
"In a victory for the Obama administration, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Thursday threw out an earlier ruling that said financial subsidies are not available for people who bought health insurance on the federal exchange...."
It will be interesting after this was touted by conservatives. They seem to think once a court rules in the way they like the ruling is final. When it is not they go over how they were "activist judges" that will be challenged.
As many of us had stated would happen, the earlier DC ruling by a 3-judge panel that decided that Obamacare Federal website subsidies were illegal has been set aside by the full panel of the DC appeals court - which means that ALL members of the panel will re-hear the case - and considering the makeup of that panel likely means the original 3-panel (2 Republicans and 1 Democrat) courts' decision will probably be reversed - which should settle the matter. Bad news for the anti-Obamacare folks.
"In a victory for the Obama administration, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Thursday threw out an earlier ruling that said financial subsidies are not available for people who bought health insurance on the federal exchange...."
It will be interesting after this was touted by conservatives. They seem to think once a court rules in the way they like the ruling is final. When it is not they go over how they were "activist judges" that will be challenged.
Funny how the full court will be "activist judges" but the GOP-dominated 3-judge is simply "interpreting the law".
Ken obviously didn't read the article. The ruling was "thrown out" simply because the full Court of Appeals decided to re-hear the case. That DOES NOT mean a ruling has been issued. It merely means the case is set to be re-heard.
When the full Court of Appeals rules on the case, get back to us.
I DID read the article.
Do you have a CLUE what the political makeup of the full court is?
Apparently not.
How do you think a Democrat dominated court will rule?
The answer is the opposite of the GOP dominated 3-judge panel.
Is it a "sure thing"?
Of course not.
But it's a REALLY GOOD BET.
Three of the associate judges on this court were appointed by Bush. Two were appointed by Clinton (one is the chief judge) and three associate judges were appointed by Obama. It's clear that whatever decision made will be made with politics in mind, rather then the law. That is pretty pathetic news, if you ask me.
Three of the associate judges on this court were appointed by Bush. Two were appointed by Clinton (one is the chief judge) and three associate judges were appointed by Obama. It's clear that whatever decision made will be made with politics in mind, rather then the law. That is pretty pathetic news, if you ask me.
As opposed to the 3-judge panel (2 GOP-apppointed judges and 1 Democrat-appointed judged) that ruled 2-1 against the Obamacare Federal website subsidies? Did you find THAT "pathetic"?
As opposed to the 3-judge panel (2 GOP-apppointed judges and 1 Democrat-appointed judged) that ruled 2-1 against the Obamacare Federal website subsidies?
Ken
Yes. It's all a joke really. There is no objectivity. The ruling will reflect who the judges were appointed by. It's really pathetic that this is how these types of decisions are made, no matter which side wins in the end. Imagine if the law actually had to be interpreted in an unbiased (or even less biased) manner. Ridiculous that these types of games are continually being played. It's a twisted game.
It will be interesting after this was touted by conservatives. They seem to think once a court rules in the way they like the ruling is final. When it is not they go over how they were "activist judges" that will be challenged.
"IT'S SETTLED LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!"
Three of the associate judges on this court were appointed by Bush. Two were appointed by Clinton (one is the chief judge) and three associate judges were appointed by Obama. It's clear that whatever decision made will be made with politics in mind, rather then the law. That is pretty pathetic news, if you ask me.
Positions that Obama filled after Reid invoked the "nuclear option" too. Those three judges probably have very little love for the Republican agenda of obstruction. The decision will likely go for Obama - but that is what it should anyway. So in this case, politics and legislative intent will come together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
