Posted Jul 24, 2014 by Martin Armstrong
When a court issues a ruling it is actually called its “opinion”. In religious circles, many of the Protestants revolted against the Catholic Church because they did not like the fact that if the Pope decreed something, it was considered to be infallible – the Sacred Magisterium. Well American judges take the same position.
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error only “When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” This formal doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, but had been defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation. What people do not appreciate that this is actually how even the all federal court rules function – by OPINION and they too are infallible.
There has been a very dramatic and important split decision between two federal appeals panels – the Washington DC Appealet Court and the notorious goose-stepping Fourth Circuit in Virginia who has never seen a law they did not like since they have always followed their own interpretation – whatever government desires is infallible.
This split decision concerns the legality of Obamacare subsidies that gave billions of dollars to help 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov while the rest of us have seen rocketing healthcare costs that Obama will start to tax in 2016.
A panel of the Washington DC Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the subsidies were and are illegal if issued through that federal exchange, as opposed to one set up by a state. A state only needs to be fair within its boarders, but at the federal level, the real issue is discrimination based upon work.
The notorious Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel of course ruled 3-0 in another case that the subsidies are legal for people who buy plans on HealthCare.gov, which the federal government operates in 36 states. No surprise there. The only other court hopelessly corrupt in opinion is New York’s Second Circuit.
The two decisions now should force the Supreme Court to issue its OPINION based upon their personal desires and perspective. This is how law works – it’s just opinion. There is no real guide here. It was in the Supreme Court decision of 1803 known as Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which became a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
For now, the subsidies will remain in effect. The stakes are immense for this is a law that economically is undermining everything because its approach was a disaster covert act intended to merely increase taxes. If we are really concerned about 5 million people, they could have easily expanded a current program. Obama altered health insurance for 300 million people under the pretense of helping 5 million. He wanted to tax all benefits any employee gets. This was also to allow healthcare for hospitals who do not get paid for whatever reason be it no insurance or illegal aliens. They could not give you Social Security without introducing the payroll tax. This is how it functions. Pretend to care on one hand and stab the knife in the back with the other.
The subsidies are also the linchpin to Obamacare’s three mandates. The first mandate now requires people to obtain affordable health insurance or pay a fine.The other, beginning in 2015, will require mid- to large-sized employers to offer such insurance to workers or pay a tax penalty. The third show hits in 2016 with the Cadillac Tax – the first taxation of benefits.
If the subsidies aren’t legal in HealthCare.gov-served states, the employer mandate would be eliminated in those states and the individual mandate would be effectively crippled. The subsidies to HealthCare.gov enrollees were authorized by an IRS rule that was issued after the Affordable Care Act was passed. Yes – just a RULE! Not even a pretended democratic law passed by the representatives of the people.
The plaintiffs in several of these federal lawsuits claim that rule is not legal because the ACA only explicitly authorizes subsidies to enrollees on state-run exchanges. The ACA does not explicitly authorize subsidies being issued to enrollees on a federal exchange, although it does discuss the creation of such an exchange as HealthCare.gov if a state doesn’t set up its own marketplace.
Consequently, the Washington D.C. circuit court looked at the plain language and failed to see any such authorization agreeing that only state-exchange enrollees can legally be granted such subsidies. The stated: “Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states.” The court further stated:
“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.”
Judge Harry Edwards who is a Democrat dissented clearly on politics writing that this was a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” Obamacare, and said the ruling “portends disastrous consequences.” But therein lies the problem Are we ruling on the plain language of the law or politics?
The Obama administration said it will ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel’s decision, which for now does not have the rule of law in what would be an En Banc decision meaning every judge has to participate on the Washington DC Appellate Court..
The notorious Fourth Circuit said that the language detailing how those tax credits are awarded is “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” That is clever judge language for dodging the plain language and is ethically dishonest. But the panel found that it is “clear that widely available tax credits are essential to fulfilling the Act’s primary goals and that Congress was aware of their importance when drafting the bill.” In other words, well it might now be correctly written, but we think had Congress been aware they would have corrected the error. That is pure speculation and denies the Democratic principles of the entire country.
The Forth Circuit goose-stepped as always and wrote “The IRS Rule advances this understanding by ensuring that this essential component exists on a sufficiently large scale,” but that is a rule and not even voted on by the people. So now they rely upon an unelected bureaucrat to write a rule and that is called dictatorship.
The clever language of the Fourth Circuit reveals that Obamacare is illegal as applied. You do not argue would-haves, could-haves, and probabilities and pretend you are a judge of law. This is political opinion and nothings more. An absolute disgrace.