Judicial activism vs. non-judicial activism

[Coleyounger]

I find it ironic that both democrats and republicans have complained about judicial activism when they lose a argument in the court. A perfect example of this is this mornings ruling from the DC circuit striking down the governments argument that the ACA means something that it didn't spell out. (tax subsidies)

Now the spin cycle is in full swing...I just read the complete ruling and the court said in many different ways it is not there job to insert, or interpret language that doesn't exist. They cited many supreme court rulings that basically stated the same thing.

The government wants the court to engage in judicial activism when they favor it, yet slams judicial activism when it goes against there goals or interests...Amazing....It will be interesting to see how the full DC circuit court will rule now...

The simple fix is to have congress rewrite the language...That isn't going to happen so it will go up to the Supreme Court eventually..

Full opinion here: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85257D1D004E6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf

[Coleyounger]

So later in the day we have a second opinion from the 4th circuit over a similar case. The outcome here is in favor of the governments argument. After reading the opinion, they basically concluded that the language can support both the governments position or the plaintiffs.

"W]hen an agency interprets ambiguities in its organic statute, it is entirely appropriate for that agency to consider .. policy arguments that are rationally related to the [statute’s] goals.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Ariz. Pub. .."

The reality is that both opinions can't be right...Plain language vs. interpretation. or judicial activism vs. non-judicial activism. Regardless, both opinions will be appealed to the supreme court.

Read it here: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/king_usca4_20140722.pdf

As far as the ACA is concerned, I suspect it will be heavily modified, gutted, or repealed after the employer mandate goes into effect...but maybe not.... The Obama administration has already exempted U.S. territories from the act as it has proven to be more expensive to the territorial population and employers. When employers of the 50 states have a choice between a lessor penalty or a more expensive policy, I suspect most will pay the penalty. Once employers stop providing insurance as a benefit, it will take an act of congress (i.e. giving tax breaks) to get them to reinstate the benefit.

"If" (emphasis added) a majority of individuals have to pay out of pocket, the U.S. consumer economy will suffer. Money that would be otherwise spent on consumer goods and services will be redirected to the insurance industry. Central planning has a tendency to misdirect capital flows toward favored industries / individuals. What impact this will have on jobs is unknown as the employer savings from the fine might offset some loss in revenue. Small service industry jobs may have to absorb most of the economic impact. Larger chain stores and franchise service providers may survive the impact intact. There will be some winners and losers.