http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/30/1333414/-Republican-judge-in-Oklahoma-rules-against-Obamacare-tax-subsidies?detail=email
Judge Ronald A. White, an Oklahoma federal judge appointed to the bench by George W. Bush has just ruled that the subsidies cannot go to residents of states that are using the federal insurance exchanges. The case, Pruitt v. Burwell, mirrors Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell in that it says a sloppy bit of wording in the law—which is contradicted by the legislative history, as well as intent of the law—means that only people residing in states that set up their own exchanges can receive subsidies.
Ian Millhiser has read White's decision, and is not impressed.
One thing that immediately stands out in White’s opinion is just how thin his legal reasoning is. Despite the fact that this case concerns a matter of life and death for the millions of Americans he orders uninsured, his actual discussion of the merits of this case comprises less than 7 double-spaced pages of his opinion. In that brief analysis he quotes the two other Republican judges who ordered Obamacare defunded, claiming that "the government offers no textual basis" in the Affordable Care Act itself for treating federally-run exchanges the same as those run by states. In fact, the government has identified numerous provisions of the law which cut against the argument that only some exchanges should provide subsidies.
Even more significantly, White's opinion does not at any point acknowledge the legal standard that applies when a statute contains language that is at odds with other provisions of the law. As the Supreme Court explained in 2007, "a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation" as the "meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context." White, by contrast, relies entirely a passage that supports the plaintiffs' arguments while ignoring the much more prevalent statutory language that supports the government’s argument. […]
So White’s opinion is poorly reasoned. It ignores binding Supreme Court precedent. And it engages in selective quotation to support his conclusion. If it is reviewed by a panel of judges interested in neutrally applying the law, White will be reversed.would it not be more humane and American to just adjust the law to make all exchanges subject to the same implementation? or is that too much like the right thing to do, no pun intended i should have said the democratic thing to do. law for going on 3 years and still right wing at every level are still trying to deny American citizens affordable health care even though now the insurance companies are happy with the plan, who are they fighting this for or should i say against?
