and troubling decision by the Supremes.

Check this out. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025804081

NOT easy to arrive at the nub of the Supreme's procedural decision.

Citizen X lives in a state where the Federal Government provides a credit, While Citizen Z lives in a state the has not signed up for a state exchange. Is this ample reasoning to deny Citizen Z the same benefit as Citizen X. Especially the have to contribute his/her tax dollars and not get the same benefit. How can a law discriminate against person just because of what state the live in. Would this have any correlation to equal access to public businesses in which you can not discriminate.

Mind full, I am only asking questions. But I take exception with the article referred to. The argument that the Republicans who are bringing this challenge are not seeking to discredit the AFC and dismantle it, but only enforcing the law is wholly disingenuous. That is their clear intent.

a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances.

Major questions over the years have addressed what is a proper 'class' of people to apply equal protection to: classified by race? gender? age? sexual preference?

Until the mid-20th century the requirement was applied minimally—except in some cases of racial discrimination, such as the use of literacy tests and grandfather clauses to restrict the voting rights of blacks. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld “separate but equal” facilities for the races, thus sanctioning racial segregation. Beginning in the 1960s, the court under Chief Justice Earl Warren dramatically expanded the concept, applying it to cases involving welfare benefits, exclusionary zoning, municipal services, and school financing. During the tenure of Chief Justices Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, the court continued to add to the types of cases that might be adjudicated under equal protection, including cases involving sexual discrimination, the status and rights of aliens, abortion rights, and access to the courts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal%20protection

could happen.

LOVE these sunny 60-70 degree days.

I like cold weather; I know, I'm weird by "Southern" standards.

Nite!

it's all good. There are some great things to cook and eat when it gets cold out.

later!

Was that they initially decided not to hear King (as reported Nov 3). Then all of a sudden they change their minds and decide to hear it. Something about all of it is a bit odd, I'm not sure I buy the conventional wisdom about any of this.

Another snip:

"I think that it raises the prospect that this case is going to be decided as a matter of politics and not as a matter of law," Gluck said. "And that's extremely problematic. The D.C. Circuit rarely grants cases en banc. It would've been productive to get their view on the case. That's what the whole circuit process is for, to let arguments percolate either way on a case."

Why can't the federal exchange have subsidies? Maybe expansion of medicaid is an option, but doesn't prevent a federal program.

their own exchanges. That's not me saying that, it's Jon Gruber; an MIT economist and architect of the ACA and RomneyCare.

If the law does not allow the feds to spend money on subsidies then any granting of subsidies is illegal. The Executive branch has zero appropriations power, all appropriations authority originates with Congress.

Gruber calculated that if the feds didn't offer subsidies then the states would set up exchanges in order to get dollars for their exchanges. If the fed did offer subsidies then states would be too tempted to not set-up exchanges and kick their people into the federal exchange. Again,that's not me saying it; there are videos of Gruber, made prior to the bill's passage, explaining his intentions. Gruber miscalculated -- catastrophically -- the degree to which the GOP would balk.

It's what the legislatures intended that matters. He didn't vote for it and I don't think he wrote it. Even if he did want to deny subsidies to states without exchanges, that doesn't mean that what he wanted was reflected in the final bill.

voted for. The fact that it is reflected in the final bill is the crux of the debate.

Intent of the legislators is theoretically contained in the language of the law, and the language of the law doesn't provide for Federal Subsidies. Once again, Democrats underestimated the Republicans. The Democrats never dreamed that the states would turn away from the money. When the states did, the Federal Government decided not to punish the people who would have lost out. The problem is, by the letter of the law, they can't do that. By this time, there was no way to amend the law with the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives.

So now the Court is going to decide what the law says, and what is Constitutional. This by the way is a way bigger threat to the law than the last case. Because the letter of the law is on the anti ACA side. If this case is successful, the subsidies paid to millions of people will end. But the requirement to buy the insurance won't end. So the poor will face bills that are so high they can't possibly meet them.

Another interesting fact. No one is saying that this will pressure the Republicans into finally setting up the State exchanges. I guess the idea that there will be a groundswell of determined support for our side is ending.

After all, his wife works for a "non-profit" organization whose goal is to destroy Obamacare.

I mean, even though she only makes 700,000 dollars a year for her "work" there, and that is surely not enough to influence a Justice of the highest court in the greatest country in the history of the world, it may cause an appearance of impropriety and surely Justice Thomas would never allow that. (Insert sarcasm thingy here)

The Supreme Majority will void it, that's the plan, to kick it back to
Congress so Republicans can amend, tweak, and have their repeal
fight.

Wonder what the insurance lobby will do? They're making bacon with
Obamacare. Repeal won't be popular. Unless --------- they can
void exchanges and raise rates! And blame Obamacare!

They'll make health insurance free for those earning more than $250,000
a year if they can.

You heard it here first!