A LAWYERS TAKE ON THE D.C. COURT OF APPEALS OBAMACARE DECISION TODAY: As a strict-constructionist of statutory language, I was at first enamored by the majoritys (2 judges) thinking. Section 36B DOES say health care exchanges established BY a state. But the more I read from the eloquent, but long and severely rambling majority opinion, the more skeptical I became. It seemed that Judge Griffith (a G.W.Bush appointee, and fellow U.Va. alum!), was straining to achieve a result. By the time I got to the dissent by Judge Edwards (Jimmy Carter appointee), I was ripe for more solid judicial reasoning. Judge Edwards nailed it-- the statute IS ambiguous. As such, you cant ascribe catastrophic results to a few isolated words, which is admittedly what the majority opinion would produce. But from that failed initial premise, the 2 Republican judges would literally gut the ACA. Dont take my word for it, read the opinion, yourself: online.wsj/public/resources/documents/ACAruling07222014.pdf Surly the en banc 17 judges of the DC Circuit will be asked to weigh in.
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:39:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015