July 22, 2014

A big defeat for Obamacare in the D.C. Court of Appeals.

"The 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov."
"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. "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."

In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority "portends disastrous consequences." 
ADDED: Here's the PDF of the opinion,  Halbig v. Burwell. Excerpt:
Although both appellants and the government argue that the ACA, read in its totality, evinces clear congressional intent, they dispute what that intent actually is. Appellants argue that if taxpayers can receive credits only for plans enrolled in “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA],” then the IRS clearly cannot give credits to taxpayers who purchased insurance on an Exchange established by the federal government. After all, the federal government is not a “State,” see 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d) (defining “State” to “mean[] each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”), and its authority to establish Exchanges appears in section 1321 rather than section 1311, see id. § 18041(c)(1). The government counters that appellants take a blinkered view of the ACA and that sections 1311 and 1321 of the Act establish complete equivalence between state and federal Exchanges, such that when the federal government establishes an Exchange, it does so standing in the state’s shoes. Furthermore, the government argues, whereas appellants’ construction of section 36B renders other provisions of the ACA absurd, its own view brings coherence to the statute and better promotes the purpose of the Act.

We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an “Exchange established by the State,” and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges. We reach this conclusion by the following path: First, we examine section 36B in light of sections 1311 and 1321, which authorize the establishment of state and federal Exchanges, respectively, and conclude that section 36B plainly distinguishes Exchanges established by states from those established by the federal government. We then consider the government’s arguments that this construction generates absurd results but find that it does not render other provisions of the ACA unworkable, let alone so unreasonable as to justify disregarding section 36B’s plain meaning. Finally, turning to the ACA’s purpose and legislative history, we find that the government again comes up short in its efforts to overcome the statutory text. Its appeals to the ACA’s broad aims do not demonstrate that Congress manifestly meant something other than what section 36B says.
UPDATE: On the same day, a panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals goes the other way:
[In King v. Burwell,] Judge Roger L. Gregory, who received a recess appointment from President Bill Clinton and a permanent appointment from the second President Bush, said that the rival interpretations of the law by the plaintiffs and by the Obama administration appeared to be “equally plausible.”

But, Judge Gregory said, the administration’s position helps achieve “the broad policy goals” of the Affordable Care Act. “The economic framework supporting the act would crumble if the credits were unavailable on federal exchanges,” he said.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Andre M. Davis, a senior judge on the appeals court, said the plaintiffs’ argument “would effectively destroy the statute.” It would, he said, “deny to millions of Americans desperately needed health insurance through a tortured, nonsensical construction” of the law. Judge Davis and the other judge on the panel, Stephanie D. Thacker, were appointed by Mr. Obama.
Obviously, the Supreme Court needs to resolve this split, which is all about the extent to which judges can rewrite statutes to save them. That's what I'd say anyway, but I suspect most people think it's about whether they want to the ACA to survive or die.

83 comments:

rhhardin said...

2-1. That there was a 1 is discouraging.

hawkeyedjb said...

I don't understand the dissent by Judge Edwards. What does the (purported) motivation of the plaintiff have to do with determining the plain language of a law?

Eric said...

If there are "disastrous consequences" it's because of the shoddy construction of this slapped-together law.

The state-subsidies clause was clearly added as an incentive to the states, two-thirds of which turned them down. This White House wants to now ignore the law's unambiguous wording. This fiasco is on this Administration alone.

damikesc said...

Why are Progresive judges concerned about possible negative reprcussions of decisions only if they dont like the verdict? Arent judges not supppsed to care about that and just look at the law (of Congress writes a law badly, then its their fault).

I doubt the judge worries about repurcussions if gay marriage is legalized.

Tank said...

Couldn't find enough emanations and penumbras to make the word State equal the word Federal. It's obviously the right decision, yet, of course, there is a dissent.

Chris said...

Democrats drafted a sloppy bill, passed it in undemocratic fashion, and hoped that the President and the courts would paper over its many flaws.

The problem with the ACA is that in their pride, Democrats thought they could go it alone. They were wrong. They're still wrong.

paminwi said...

This will make me happy for a day or so until obama says they will ask for the full court to rule. They will go with Obama as will the 4th circuit when they issue their ruling (my not a lawyer guess).

So... If both circuits decide in favor of obama will the Supreme Court even take the case?

Kevin said...

"In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority "portends disastrous consequences."

Um. I thought they were supposed to decide cases based on their merits and the law.

Not on the potential ramifications.

Maybe it's just me.

The Drill SGT said...

So where does that leave the Billions that HHS is paying out in subsidies via the Federal exchanges?

1. an anti-Deficiency act crime?
2. money that consumers now owe to the Feds?
3. makes no difference. Obama owns all our money. He giveth and he taketh away

I assume there was a request for a stay?

Does this impact 2014 payments?

Fen said...

Judge Harry Edwards is more concerned with outcomes than the rule of law. He should be impeached.

Balfegor said...

Republicans should offer a bargain -- strip down the minimum coverage standards to something that will be affordable (and sustainable) in exchange for allowing subsidies through the federal exchanges.

The Crack Emcee said...

paminwi,

"This will make me happy for a day or so until obama says they will ask for the full court to rule. They will go with Obama as will the 4th circuit when they issue their ruling (my not a lawyer guess)."

Agreed - so it's white people wasting our time again.

And why would taking insurance from other Americans make anyone "happy"?

Sick shit,...

Michael K said...

HuffPo is going crazy about this decision which will be reversed by the full court that has been packed by Obama.

This is not the end of Obamacare. That will be in another three years when it collapses of its own incompetence. The GOP Congress will not be interested in rescuing it but they should try to do good reform.

In 1994, I was finishing a health policy degree at Dartmouth when the GOP Congress took over. I was really interested in spending a year working on policy with the new Congress. I had some help from Judd Gregg's office and met with some staff people. I was told that any health reform legislation would be written by tax lawyers. They were not interested in anyone with a background in health care.

I would have worked for nothing but knew that we were fucked then. Too bad the Republicans don't seem to understand any better than Democrats.

tim maguire said...

I would have thought the best argument for the government rests in the common use of "the state" as a generic term for government, rather than necessarily referring specifically to the state government.

Surprising and quite sad that Judge Edwards' dissent amounts to no more than "I don't like that outcome." Another judge who doesn't seem to understand the basic nature of his job.

I will patiently await the response of all the liberal legal commentators and "experts" who said this suit was frivolous and had no hope.

Boltforge said...

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.

President 'Healer of the Earth' and Judge Edwards know this is true. Which is why Obama doesn't enforce Obamacare for select groups. And why Edwards dissented.

If we actually enforce the unread-by-democrats law (due to rampant logical illiteracy among progressives), then it would quickly go down in flames.

Curious George said...

I guess that "pass it so we know what is in it" wasn't such a good idea after all.

hawkeyedjb said...

"Judge Harry Edwards is more concerned with outcomes than the rule of law. He should be impeached."

Indeed. I don't think there are many instances in which I would agree with impeachment of a jurist, but this appears to be a plain case of willfully overriding a plain law to reach a desired political outcome. It is destructive to the judiciary.

garage mahal said...

Sucks to live in a red state. Like Wisconsin.

Virgil Hilts said...

I don't think it was "shoddy construction" or "sloppy." It was written to punish the poor in States that did not adopt exchanges, with the assumption that all of the States would therefore adopt exchanges. Assumption wrong (uh oh!) so the IRS and Obama, of course, tried to change the law without going back to Congress. While the court did not accept it, I think the appellants' argument described in footnote 11 of the opinion is the best explanation of what happened.

B said...

After Chief Justice Roberts's penalty is a tax decision, I'm not hopeful that a plain language reading will prevail.

RecChief said...

Admin requests En Banc review

And now you know why Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear option" to get those judges appointed.

This administration really is transparent after all.

Drago said...

Fen: "Judge Harry Edwards is more concerned with outcomes than the rule of law. He should be impeached."

What surprised me the most was how "matter of fact" he was in expressing that in his dissent.

I didn't think he would make it that cut and dried.

However, upon reflection, since obama's initial election we have seen the masks just about fully come off the leftists as they have moved their policy preferences forward which have demonstrated just how radical they are.

It appears clear that after 2008 the left really believed that the fast track to leftist authoritarianism was unstoppable and it was now "ok" to be publicly expressed.

PB Reader said...

Seeking to enforce law as written and intended is not gutting Obamacare. The IRS had no legal foundation on which to expand these subsidies. Who will be held responsible for the misapplication of federal funds on the subsidies?

PB Reader said...

If Obama had some intelligence he would direct the IRS to stop the subsidy payments and allow people to cancel their policies and let Congress deal with the fallout.

James Pawlak said...

QUESTION: Will Mr. Obama obey that decision? Some recent news hints that he will not. If so, will the courts punish him or his co-actors (In the criminal justice meaning) for "Contempt Of Court"? In other words, do such judges have such courage?

Scott said...

Well, I'd say the odds of this going up to the Supreme Court just increased dramatically.

Real American said...

now it's time to send all the moochers a tax bill.

Drago said...

garage mahal said...
Sucks to live in a red state. Like Wisconsin.

LOL

The peoples paradise of Illinois is just a couple of hours away and awaits your arrival!!

Of course, that assumes you are capable of reading and understanding road signs.

Given your performance on this blog of late, that is not a given.

"Every city a Chicago!!" should be garages rallying cry!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It was written to punish the poor in States that did not adopt exchanges, with the assumption that all of the States would therefore adopt exchanges

Yup. This is what happens when laws are cobbled together by people who have no concept regarding the psychology governing how people, in real life, will act. No knowledge of the industry about which they are trying to write the laws. No ability to look at unintended consequences. AND a complete and utter ignorance of basic economic principles such as supply and demand.

This is what happens when the law makers don't ever READ what is in the laws they are passing.

The blind leading the blind. Man....I want to get off of this carnival ride.

garage mahal said...

Before: OMG. Millions are losing healthcare and their premiums are going up!

Now: Yes! Millions will lose healthcare and their premiums will go up! I've never felt so alive in my life!

Boltforge said...

garage mahal said...
"Sucks to live in a red state"

Sucks to live in a blue state like Oregon.

Chuck said...

Professor Althouse:

A procedural question. In the en banc hearing, will it just be the 11 active Circuit Judges (7 Democrat appointees to 4 Republican), or will it include the six Senior status judges (Harry Edwards is one)?

If you include the Senior status judges, the count is 9 Republican appointees to 8 Democrats. (Judge Buckley is inactive; he'd make it 10 to 8.)

Boltforge said...

The Crack Emcee said...
"And why would taking insurance from other Americans make anyone 'happy'?"

First, how can you take insurance from them? They are required BY LAW (you know Obamacare) to purchase insurance. If they don't have insurance, then they are breaking the law and should pay the penalty.

Isn't that what you wanted with Obamacare?

Brando said...

As absurd as this may seem to Obamaphiles--who likely think the law's intent was obviously to have the subsidies apply whether you lived in a state with its own exchange or a state that relied on the federal exchange--score one for courts interpreting the law as written. Don't like this result? Blame the idiots who rushed the law through in draft version.

Oh, Reid and company thought they were so clever passing the law without going back to conference committee, and so sure that this would be a popular success like Medicare. But hey, you write the law poorly, it'll get interpreted for what it says, not what you meant for it to say when you were trying to outfox your opponents.

traditionalguy said...

Foiled again. That subsidy for policies from State Exchanges provision was the secret back door into Nationalized Federal health care.

Hundreds of millions of dollars for setting up State Exchanges became a weak link. By habit the local Dem pols treated them as their never to be accounted for Federal grant money loot and sent the money into corrupt contracts with friends who pocketed a cut and re-distributed most of the cash back to the Dem Pols. But the idiots never bothered to build the State Exchanges.

Brando said...

Related to this, where does the money for all those subsidies come from? I know there are some taxes involved with the ACA (like the Medicare tax on some house sales) and penalties for those who won't buy their own health insurance, but are these really enough to pay the big subsidies that are going out? And if not, where is that extra money coming from?

I mean this from the standpoint of the drafters of the law--how were they expecting to fund this? Because it doesn't seem to me that there's enough of a revenue source to cover checks sending several thousand dollars a year to millions of people.

Ann Althouse said...

@Chuck Here's the Rule of Appellate Procedure:

RULE 35. EN BANC DETERMINATION

(a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.


So, no senior status judges.

garage mahal said...

The peoples paradise of Illinois is just a couple of hours away and awaits your arrival!!

So is Minnesota. And they have jobs. And no criminal investigations.

damikesc said...

Before: OMG. Millions are losing healthcare and their premiums are going up!

Now: Yes! Millions will lose healthcare and their premiums will go up! I've never felt so alive in my life!


Perhaps your side should try passing laws that abide by the Constitution.

Jane the Actuary said...

So, if the en banc ruling is in favor of the administration, which it sounds like it will be, will it be the same "I rule based on the outcome I want" reasoning?

And, in the world we live in, how often do judges rule based on what the law says, vs. their desired outcome? Isn't the latter what's happening with the gay marriage decisions?

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Before: OMG. Millions are losing healthcare and their premiums are going up!

Now: Yes! Millions will lose healthcare and their premiums will go up! I've never felt so alive in my life!"

Your side wrote the law Corky. YOU LOVE OBAMACARE...REMEMBER? W

Why do you hate poor people garage? Is it just poor blacks, or poor whites also?

And in WI, more people have access to covergae than ever before.

Fen said...

I think Garage is trying to manage some passive-aggressive trolling whatever. Can someone give him a hand? Its getting pathetic.

tim in vermont said...

Pretty funny that that one judge fancies himself an unelected retroactive legislator.

garage mahal said...

And in WI, more people have access to covergae than ever before

And more people have access to a career in astrophysics. Actual truth is that Wisconsin is paying millions more in covering fewer people. Bcuz our dull boy has to appease the mouthbreathers that vote for him by not setting up a state exchange and turning down federal money for Medicaid expansion. Life in a red state.

Original Mike said...

I'm trying to give Judge Edwards the benefit of the doubt. Did he give any legal reasoning along with expressing concern for the consequences?

Bruce Hayden said...

The answer is that, absent some other extra-legal executive actions, this probably means that the "subsidies" that have been supporting so many on the federal exchanges will be invalid. Keep in mind that what is apparently actually going on is that the subsidies are in the form of tax credits, which the insurance companies are accepting on behalf of their policy holders as part payment for their policies. But, if the subsidies/tax credits are not valid, then they will not be available on their 2014 income tax returns. And, legally, that means that the policy holders owe the insurance companies, and the insurance companies owe the federal government. Can the federal government waive the insurance companies owing all that money to them? Maybe not legally, but I expect that the Obama Administration will, on the grounds perhaps that they are already legally obligated to reimburse the insurance companies for their losses (at least in the early years).

We shall see.

Original Mike said...

"So is Minnesota. And they have jobs. And no criminal investigations"

So no lawless DA, huh?

Matthew Sablan said...

Of course, another court went with the context instead of the plain meaning.

I wonder if they heard that HHS said the context is state meant state, not just government. I hope not, or that would just be embarrassing.

Rumpletweezer said...

Hey Nancy Pelosi, we have to pass the law to find out what's NOT in it!

Mike said...

rhhardin nailed it right off the bat. How can there be even one who is willing to say "the law does not say what it really means." This is like almost every argument my wife and I have ever had. "Yes I said that but I meant this."

Sigh.

And 7/11 of the en banc judges are recent Obama appointees so we will now see how many more are willing to say the law is not the law.

Sigh.

Mike said...

Crack MC says
And why would taking insurance from other Americans make anyone "happy"?


FREEing our fellow Americans from the SHACKLES of Obamacare is what makes us happy. Your twisted logic sucks.

Drago said...

garage the hopeless: "Bcuz our dull boy has to appease the mouthbreathers that vote for him by not setting up a state exchange and turning down federal money for Medicaid expansion"

LOL

So, to summarize: Gov Scott Walker abides by the law passed by the dems.

Dems get upset.

Yep.

That sums it up.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
So is Minnesota. And they have jobs. And no criminal investigations."

Private sector job creation 2014:

WI 8500
MN 7800
http://tinyurl.com/mzucezo

Survey finds 96% of employers believe WI is headed in the right direction (up from 10% under Doyle).
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lf6joun

Ruh roe.

But do you need help packing? Directions?

garage mahal said...

So no lawless DA, huh?

I'm sure Minnesota has Republican DA's and Republican special prosecutors that are honest, as in Wisconsin.

Drago said...

Mike: "How can there be even one who is willing to say "the law does not say what it really means."

The left will do/say whatever it takes to accumulate/consolidate power.

The destruction of language and the plain meaning of words is a foundational requirement for leftist rule.

"Truth" is whatever the party says it is, regardless of what was said 5 minutes ago, an hour ago, yesterday, last week, last year etc.

Larry J said...

The law plainly says what it says. Anyone can easily read what the law says. Arguing otherwise reminds me of an old Richard Pryor routine. His wife caught him in bed with another woman. He denies everything, saying "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

cubanbob said...

The courts have a serious problem with this tar-baby: if they don't uphold this ruling black letter law means nothing. If the ruling stands, ObamaCare is probably mortally wounded. Aside from the fact if this ruling isn't stayed and ultimately upheld, then quite a number of people are going to owe a considerable amount of taxes as the subsidies are not legal there is no reason to presume that the thirty four states that didn't set-up an exchange are going to have their Congressional delegations for to tax their citizens to subsidize the sixteen states that did. And those sixteen states on their own can't afford to tax themselves sufficiently to not only provide the subsidies but continue the expanded Medicaid program. In addition without the ability to tax and penalize in the thirty four states the compulsory aspects of the ACA the whole ACA regulatory scheme becomes rather iffy in the thirty four states and without those states as part of the deal the insurance companies probably won't be able to do business in the sixteen states.

While its too early to tell, I was always of the opinion that if the ACA is killed by the courts it would be on the basis of tax laws.

garage mahal said...

WI 8500
MN 7800
http://tinyurl.com/mzucezo


Here are the real numbers, from Walker's DWD. Wisconsin *lost* private sector jobs four out of the six months of 2014. Time to attack Trek Bicycle!

Browndog said...

Here we again...

"These people that wrote the law are incompetant!"

"This law was just cobbled together!"

These people in control of government really really mean well, they just keep getting snake bit by innocent mistakes!

Everything in ACA, every single word, has a specific purpose, and was put in the law on purpose.

What was the specific purpose for the specific language of the issue at hand?

1) To strong arm all states to create their own exchanges, saving the federal government money, and insulating Obama from potential failures.

2) The States that would refuse to set up their own exchanges would most likely have Republican Governors. In those states, the premiums would be sky high and out of reach, and the blame would fall on Republicans.

Not exactly "OOPSY!"

SeanF said...

Althouse: So, no senior status judges.

I don't see how your link says that, Ann. The reference to "regular active service" is about which judges can order such a hearing, not which judges would sit on such a hearing.

Woo who? said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/22/today-was-one-of-obamacares-craziest-days-ever-what-now/

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the IRS correctly interpreted the text ofthe ACA. Sorry to ruin your celebration.

drywilly said...

"So is Minnesota. And they have jobs. And no criminal investigations"

"So no lawless DA, huh?

Plus a lawless Sec of State

Brando said...

I wonder what the chances are of this getting to the Supreme Court. And if that happens, look out.

Birkel said...

So "garage mahal" is still talking about investigations that have led to likely personal liability for the would-be prosecutors for violating the civil rights of Wisconsinites? Even after those prosecutors affirmed the GAB was illegally coordinating with the defendant-criminal-civil rights abusing-prosecutors?

Denying citizens' civil rights has always been a Democrat policy. "Garage mahal" would have been happy to stand in schoolhouse doors with fellow Democrats 50 years ago.

Full Fascism is the Democrat endgame.

Todd said...

Blogger Woo who? said...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/22/today-was-one-of-obamacares-craziest-days-ever-what-now/

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the IRS correctly interpreted the text ofthe ACA. Sorry to ruin your celebration.

7/22/14, 2:32 PM


The link leads to:

The 4th Circuit decision in Virginia siding with the administration said the statute is too ambiguous, as is the legislative history, so it couldn't actually determine whether Congress meant to limit the subsidies to just exchanges set up by the states. However, the court said the IRS has some latitude to interpret the law, and providing premium subsidies in all exchanges, regardless of who's running them, fits in with the ACA's coverage goals.

So the fourth ignored the letter of the law and went with what they decided the intent was whereas as others here have pointed out that wording was very likely intentional to prod the states into setting up their own exchanges as a carrot and denying the funds to those using the federal exchange as the stick to beat red states with. It backfired and so the IRS overstepped to cover O's ass and now the 4th is doing the same.

It is all the same with this admin "the law is what we say, at the time we say and everyone else can STFU".

paminwi said...

Crack says in response to me:

"Agreed - so it's white people wasting our time again.

And why would taking insurance from other Americans make anyone "happy"?

Sick shit,..."

You want white people out of all decision making in our country - get to work populating the country with your evil spawn - make sure us nasty whire people are the minority and then who the fuck will you blame for decisions you don't like.

I dislike this law, it has NOTHING to do with people having insurance or not having insurance. There were so many better options that would not have resulted in all of these lawsuits.

And actually, I have a vested interest in making sure MORE people have insurance because that means more people will use health care services which is the business my husband is in. So, more people using insurance, means more money to his employer and in turn more money to us personally.

So.. just incase you are too brain dead - more insurance for citizens - more money for me! I will not just be a nasty white person, I will be a richer, nasty white person!

Have you bothered me with your comment? - not in a million years - I just laugh at people like you - that no matter what decision is made in any situation - be it by the federal gov't, state gov't or local gov't you will never be happy. I will always be a nasty white person to you and you will always be a nasty black person to me.

Now....waiting, waiting - how long until you call me a racist? Time starts - NOW!

Drago said...

Birkel: "So "garage mahal" is still talking about investigations that have led to likely personal liability for the would-be prosecutors for violating the civil rights of Wisconsinites?"

Yes.

Further, as is SOP on the left, he is still talking about them in the present tense.

Not that he understands tenses of course. He's just parroting what his betters have told him to say.

Michael K said...

"Sucks to live in a red state. Like Wisconsin."

Oh gee, garage, sorry to hear you are having such a hard time. Would a small donation to U Haul help you ?

garage mahal said...

Denying citizens' civil rights has always been a Democrat policy

In this case, there are both Republicans and Democrats leading the investigation, including the special prosecutor who said he voted for Walker.

Birkel said...

Anybody referring to "legislative history" for a bill that was crafted in committee and not read before passage should kindly shut the FUCK up! There is little to no legislative record. There was almost no debate. Amendments were not allowed.

Any court that mentions legislative "history" should write what is actually meant: "intent". But that too is impossible to discern, even years later.

Stop pretending.

Ann Althouse said...

@SeanF I thought the question was about voting to hear en banc. The question of who sits on the en banc panel is covered by the statute, 28 U.S. Code § 46:

(c) ... A court in banc shall consist of all circuit judges in regular active service, or such number of judges as may be prescribed in accordance with section 6 of Public Law 95–486 (92 Stat. 1633), except that any senior circuit judge of the circuit shall be eligible

(1) to participate, at his election and upon designation and assignment pursuant to section 294 (c) of this title and the rules of the circuit, as a member of an in banc court reviewing a decision of a panel of which such judge was a member, or

(2) to continue to participate in the decision of a case or controversy that was heard or reheard by the court in banc at a time when such judge was in regular active service.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
WI 8500
MN 7800
http://tinyurl.com/mzucezo

Here are the real numbers, from Walker's DWD. Wisconsin *lost* private sector jobs four out of the six months of 2014. Time to attack Trek Bicycle!"

From your link:

12-month addition of 33,800 private-sector jobs, 45,400 total nonfarm jobs through June '14

Wisconsin's preliminary unemployment rate was 5.7 percent seasonally adjusted in June 2014, unchanged from the previous month and below the national rate of 6.1 percent.

Wisconsin's preliminary June 2014 unemployment rate is down from 6.8 percent in June 2013, and is Wisconsin's lowest rate since October 2008.

The BLS preliminary June 2014 job estimates also show statistically significant (outside margin of error) growth year over year with gains of 33,800 in private sector jobs 45,400 total nonfarm jobs

Wisconsin had the seventh highest per capita personal income growth in the
U.S. in 2013

According to monthly estimates, Wisconsin has created 114,600 private sector jobs since December 2010.

Initial weekly Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims for the first 27 weeks of 2014 dropped to the lowest point
since 2000, and the annual average weekly UI claims are at their lowest levels since 2000

Yes, damning evidence...for Mary Burke!

Why aren't you packing Corky?


garage mahal said...

According to monthly estimates, Wisconsin has created 114,600 private sector jobs since December 2010

Close to 150,000 short of his promise, and dead last in the Midwest.

Walker seems really desperate lately. 4th negative attack this month? Attacking Trek?

Any guesses on tomorrow's Marquette poll?

Here is my predix:

LV Burke 48-46
RV Burke 49-45

If you're a real man you will tell us your prediction.

Anonymous said...

I live in a county with a public hospital district which runs 3 hospitals and about 20 clinics. They collect tax money as part of their income. I pay $60 per year in taxes. They have a foundation that holds fundraising events and accepts donations in cash, supplies, and equipment. They accept insurance from patients but they also have a need-based financial aid process and they don't turn anybody down. I would prefer an increase in my taxes as a way to pay for more healthcare for the uninsured. We can still do it that way.

Birkel said...

"garage mahal" still defends illegal and unconstitutional attempts to deprive U.S. citizens their civil rights!

George Wallace remains proud of his legacy Democrats.

Full Fascism or Bust!

Garbage Mahal said...

It sucks to be me.

chickelit said...

garage mahal said...
Sucks to live in a red state. Like Wisconsin.

Garage, you should get and wear one of these. Note the color scheme.

Anonymous said...

Why do we even need law professors anymore?

Perhaps this sounds like a silly question, but this is the road we are on. There may have come a time when Judges actually judged the law and the dispute based on their understanding of current law.

But then came lawfare. The idea that changing the constitution and legislation could be done through the courts.

Now we have judges who very clearly don't care what the law says. Nor do they even put forward a fig leaf of pretense that they are trying to follow the law. They are legislators who sit on the bench.

It's a good thing our hostess is close to retirement age. We don't need law professors anymore, we just need activists.

chickelit said...

If you're a real man you will tell us your prediction.

Walker wins everywhere but Madison/Dane County.

rhhardin said...

Richard Epstein thinks the defeat will be upheld in the Supreme Court 5-4.

Scott said...

paminwi said...

This will make me happy for a day or so until obama says they will ask for the full court to rule. They will go with Obama as will the 4th circuit when they issue their ruling (my not a lawyer guess).

So... If both circuits decide in favor of obama will the Supreme Court even take the case?

7/22/14, 10:37 AM

If both circuits decide in favor of the IRS, then, yes, the decision can still be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the DC Court of Appeals does not overturn this decision _en banc_, the Supreme Court will almost certainly hear the issue to resolve the split decision between circuit courts. In any event, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear the appeals.

averagejoe said...

Grundoon said...They have a foundation that holds fundraising events and accepts donations in cash, supplies, and equipment... I would prefer an increase in my taxes as a way to pay for more healthcare for the uninsured.

Why do you want to raise everyone's taxes when you can simply donate more of your own money to fulfill the outcome you desire? If you would rather spend more than 60 dollars in taxes, you can send as much money as you wish to the government if you think giving it to the state is somehow more efficient than giving it directly to the hospitals.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
According to monthly estimates, Wisconsin has created 114,600 private sector jobs since December 2010

Close to 150,000 short of his promise, and dead last in the Midwest."

LOL, you just can't get off your stupid talking points. "Last in the Midwest" is silly of course, WI has a smaller population than Indiana, and less than half that of Illinois, and Michigan. Minnesota is about the same, and Iowa is half but almost entirely agricultural. So that's why this is your go to talking point Corky. It's inevitable,and meaningless.

As far as Walker "falling short", he has outperformed Doyle and his commerce secretary Burke by far, which of course is why you can't go there.

But enough about this, you need to get back to your packing.