US courts issue conflicting rulings on Obamacare

WASHINGTON: -- Two US appeals courts have given conflicting rulings regarding a federal regulation implementing key subsidies of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

The subsidies provide cash help to low and middle income earners buying health insurance on federal exchanges.

The rulings are the latest in a series of legal challenges to key planks of President Obama's health care law.

The decisions are open to appeal, so nothing will change immediately.

"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," Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph wrote in his majority opinion ruling against the Obama administration's position.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28427075


-- BBC 2014-07-23

I read an article about an anti-ballistic satellite destroyer being launched in California a few weeks ago, a test which will prevent against future attacks by Iran or N. Korea, so the explanation went---at the cost of $200 million dollars of the taxpayers money. Big Tip: the US is not at war against N. Korea or Iran, but millions of people have no health insurance in the US. Imagine if people instead were in an uproar about the cost of such experiments in anti-ballistic satellite deterrence capability-testing and instead cared about the $200 million that was spent for such a test, and cared more about where the endless military expenditures are being used and for what unjustified purpose. Imagine the court rulings if people cared about the pursuit of an equitable society for the masses that are "a paycheck away from homelessness" with no health insurance, instead of a military budget which allows $200 million to be spent in deterrence testing of satellite technology (that I read about in a Defense magazine instead of in any leading newspaper, so imagine how many such tests are funded daily by taxpayer money in the US?) against countries we are not even at war against.

Edited July 23, 201411 yr by me313

Imagine if a bomb, especially a nuclear one, which North Korea is capable of and Iran may soon be capable of, got through to California. Think of the carnage, damage, and costs. Oh, and the people killed and the medical costs from radiation in a densely populated area.

....Then think of what the retaliation is going to be like.

Health care is needed, but not necessarily at the expense of defending the country.

I always found it strange that Obamacare never addressed the issue of tort reform as it applies to the medical industry. To me it seems that one of the biggest problems with people obtaining health insurance is due to the sky high costs of medical treatment which are largely due to the sky high insurance costs that hospitals and Drs have to pay to protect them from ridiculous jury awards that juries might hand out.

Recently my wife was treated for kidney stones at Bumrungrad. Two sessions of ESWL cost a total of 90,000 THB, where in the US the same treatment would have cost 20-30000 US$. This is standard technology that has been around for 2-3 decades, so I can not rationalize most of the US cost except for the insurance premium.

National Health insurance is a noble cause, but until they treat tort reform in the US, Obamacare will just be a bandaid.

I believe in universal health care, but Obamacare was sold with lies and seems to be deeply flawed.. I won't morn it.

Obama care and medicare both trap a person inside the US to get coverage. This more than anything else is about keeping the money within the US borders. You can take the $109 a month you pay for Medicare and buy a lot of insurance here in Thailand. Factor in copays and what not and it really is a no-brainer.

The medical process in the US cannot make more money if citizens know that they have a very reasonable option to get care outside the US.

Any coverage that does not allow you to use it anywhere in the world is essentially useless. And, that is a major part of the grand plan. I just had a British friend who had to sell his house and car and move back to England to get his cancer treated. The problem is not only in the US. I do not see anything getting fixed here. The problem is completely out of control. In order to fix it, costs for everything would have to be reduced by more than 50% and that is just not going to happen. The medical establishment, like the bankers, actually believe that they deserve to be muli-millionaires.

Court should do right decision of this case.

Every court in every country should "do right decision" in every case every time. Or am I missing something here..?

Ulysses G

You may believe in Universal Healthcare but clearly a great deal of your countrymen do not.Obamacare has been bitterly opposed every step of the way , often for purely dogmatic reasons , this partly explains why it has ended up as a dogs dinner.

When US people will wake up and fight for their rights. I can show you how as a french revolutionaire !! in a matter fact your guys are too selfish. it's the deep issue.

When US people will wake up and fight for their rights. I can show you how as a french revolutionaire !! in a matter fact your guys are too selfish. it's the deep issue.

They do have rights, it's called getting a job, and buy your own health insurance.

Imagine if a bomb, especially a nuclear one, which North Korea is capable of and Iran may soon be capable of, got through to California. Think of the carnage, damage, and costs. Oh, and the people killed and the medical costs from radiation in a densely populated area.

....Then think of what the retaliation is going to be like.

Health care is needed, but not necessarily at the expense of defending the country.

And without this new proposed system of dubious necessity your hypothetical missile would get through? I would not have bothered to comment on your post but you seem to be so impressed with yourself and with your sarcastic, condescending crack about medical costs resulting from a nuclear strike zone. Inane! Guess what boyo, it is not a hypothetical that many Americans are not able to get urgent medical attention, even in a life or death situation. A person with an aggressive cancer is quite possibly as good as dead before Medicaid makes a decision- They can take as long as two months. Health care is needed and it could certainly use funds that are diverted to redundant protection for one of an infinite number of theoretical threats.

BTW. If the entire population of California received radiation poisoning they would not equal the number of Americans without adequate health care.

The case may never get to the SCOTUS if the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ruling of its 3-judge panel that ruled 2-1 against the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009, Obamacare, as the Obama administration has requested it to do. If the full DC appeals court supports the law then there would be no disagreement between the two Circuit Courts of Appeal (the other Circuit Court sits in nearby Richmond, VA), which would mean the Supreme Court would have no clear legal basis to accept the case.

The right wing sector is trying to petition the Supreme Court to accept the Obamacare case before the DC Circuit Court can meet en banc (all its judges) to issue its ruling, which is expected to reverse the 3-judge panel - in other words, to support the Obamacare law. The right sector wants desperately for the Supreme Court to get the case in the belief the Supreme Court would kill the law.

A lot of legal analysis is that the Supremes may well want to keep away from this one, given the severely declining reputation of the conservative dominated Supreme Court the past couple of decades. If the provision of Obamacare being contested by the right sector is thrown out by the Supremes, millions of Americans will lose the health insurance and medical care they have just finally at last gained.

An important constitutional factor is that the Supreme Court is not required to take the case under any circumstances.

(The DC appeals court 3 judges In the present ruling had two judges appointed by the Bushes - one by Bush the father, one by Bush the son, and one appointed by Carter.)

Poll: 53% of Americans find Obamacare beneficial

In a new CNN poll, it appears the Affordable Care Act is helping a majority of Americans.

18% of those polled say Obamacare has helped them or their family directly, while 35% of people agree the legislation has helped others.

That’s 53% of Americans who find some benefit in the Affordable Care Act.

On the other hand, 44% of the polled population say Obamacare has helped no one.

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/poll-53-americans-find-obamacare-beneficial

The case may never get to the SCOTUS if the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ruling of its 3-judge panel that ruled 2-1 against the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009, Obamacare, as the Obama administration has requested it to do.

Is that the court that Obama stacked with his own judges by any chance?

The case may never get to the SCOTUS if the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ruling of its 3-judge panel that ruled 2-1 against the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009, Obamacare, as the Obama administration has requested it to do.

Is that the court that Obama stacked with his own judges by any chance?

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has 11 active judges as specifically authorized by law. Currently, 7 judges are Democrats, 4 are Republicans.

The DC Circuit has an additional 6 senior judges (inactive) which are occasionally called on by the chief judge, Merrick Garland to hear a case when the 11 active judges get too busy. Five of the additional 6 senior judges (inactive) were appointed by Reagan, one by Carter.

The 6 senior inactive judges do not sit with the active 11 appeals judges any time the Appeals Court sits en banc, or in full. So the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit sitting en banc would include only the 11 active judges (7 Ds vs 4Rs).

It's a sure bet Chief Judge Merrick Garland will call the court and its 11 members to meet en banc to reverse the ruling of its 3-judge panel. The 3-judge panel voted 2-1 against Obamacare, two of the three judges being appointed by Bush the father or Bush the son - the other judge being a senior D judge appointed by Carter and called on by Chief Judge Garland to sit with the panel. Chief Judge Garland was appointed by Prez Clinton.

Packing a court btw means to radically and suddenly change the structure of a court by either expanding or decreasing its statutorily proscribed number of active judges. FDR tried unsuccessfully to pack the Supreme Court. Barack Obama with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate routinely filled existing judicial vacancies at the court (three new judges late last year or early this year).

The other circuit court of appeals involved in this case, of the 4th Circuit, has 17 active judges, 10 of which are Democrats, 7 are Republicans. That's the appeals court whose 3-judge panel ruled 3-0 in support of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009.

All U.S. courts judges are assigned cases in turn by computer.

Edited July 24, 201411 yr by Publicus

The case may never get to the SCOTUS if the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ruling of its 3-judge panel that ruled 2-1 against the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009, Obamacare, as the Obama administration has requested it to do. If the full DC appeals court supports the law then there would be no disagreement between the two Circuit Courts of Appeal (the other Circuit Court sits in nearby Richmond, VA), which would mean the Supreme Court would have no clear legal basis to accept the case.

The right wing sector is trying to petition the Supreme Court to accept the Obamacare case before the DC Circuit Court can meet en banc (all its judges) to issue its ruling, which is expected to reverse the 3-judge panel - in other words, to support the Obamacare law. The right sector wants desperately for the Supreme Court to get the case in the belief the Supreme Court would kill the law.

A lot of legal analysis is that the Supremes may well want to keep away from this one, given the severely declining reputation of the conservative dominated Supreme Court the past couple of decades. If the provision of Obamacare being contested by the right sector is thrown out by the Supremes, millions of Americans will lose the health insurance and medical care they have just finally at last gained.

An important constitutional factor is that the Supreme Court is not required to take the case under any circumstances.

(The DC appeals court 3 judges In the present ruling had two judges appointed by the Bushes - one by Bush the father, one by Bush the son, and one appointed by Carter.)

Poll: 53% of Americans find Obamacare beneficial

In a new CNN poll, it appears the Affordable Care Act is helping a majority of Americans.

18% of those polled say Obamacare has helped them or their family directly, while 35% of people agree the legislation has helped others.

Thats 53% of Americans who find some benefit in the Affordable Care Act.

On the other hand, 44% of the polled population say Obamacare has helped no one.

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/poll-53-americans-find-obamacare-beneficial

The Supremes can address issues without a split in the Circuits if the case involves matters of national importance. Although rarely down, I would say Obamacare and discharge or abuse of executive powers would meet that criteria. The 4th Curcuut case will likely get an immediate direct appeal while there is still a split, but I think the Supremes will take it as enough of them seem to enjoy taking shots at the Affordable Healthcare Act and Obama's abuse of executive powers. This thi g is politically charged and there are enough votes on the court to grant cert.

The case may never get to the SCOTUS if the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ruling of its 3-judge panel that ruled 2-1 against the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009, Obamacare, as the Obama administration has requested it to do. If the full DC appeals court supports the law then there would be no disagreement between the two Circuit Courts of Appeal (the other Circuit Court sits in nearby Richmond, VA), which would mean the Supreme Court would have no clear legal basis to accept the case.

The right wing sector is trying to petition the Supreme Court to accept the Obamacare case before the DC Circuit Court can meet en banc (all its judges) to issue its ruling, which is expected to reverse the 3-judge panel - in other words, to support the Obamacare law. The right sector wants desperately for the Supreme Court to get the case in the belief the Supreme Court would kill the law.

A lot of legal analysis is that the Supremes may well want to keep away from this one, given the severely declining reputation of the conservative dominated Supreme Court the past couple of decades. If the provision of Obamacare being contested by the right sector is thrown out by the Supremes, millions of Americans will lose the health insurance and medical care they have just finally at last gained.

An important constitutional factor is that the Supreme Court is not required to take the case under any circumstances.

(The DC appeals court 3 judges In the present ruling had two judges appointed by the Bushes - one by Bush the father, one by Bush the son, and one appointed by Carter.)

Poll: 53% of Americans find Obamacare beneficial

In a new CNN poll, it appears the Affordable Care Act is helping a majority of Americans.

18% of those polled say Obamacare has helped them or their family directly, while 35% of people agree the legislation has helped others.

Thats 53% of Americans who find some benefit in the Affordable Care Act.

On the other hand, 44% of the polled population say Obamacare has helped no one.

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/poll-53-americans-find-obamacare-beneficial

The Supremes can address issues without a split in the Circuits if the case involves matters of national importance. Although rarely down, I would say Obamacare and discharge or abuse of executive powers would meet that criteria. The 4th Curcuut case will likely get an immediate direct appeal while there is still a split, but I think the Supremes will take it as enough of them seem to enjoy taking shots at the Affordable Healthcare Act and Obama's abuse of executive powers. This thi g is politically charged and there are enough votes on the court to grant cert.

This one is really politically white hot.

You really think the Supremes are going to charge forward directly in to this one? This one would incite the peasants with pitchforks upon the court as in literally. It would make the storming of the Bastille look like a Sunday excursion.

The five right sector Supremes would so politicize themselves so beyond the law they would lose the pale legal credibility they still cling to. The language in the law the extreme right is challenging has a lot of judicial precedent and case law in Obama's and the people's favor and the four dissenting justices would make powerfully strong legal arguments against the five that would make the usual right sector political hack majority.

That's assuming the Chief John Roberts flips to the other side this time. You know four votes are required in a closed secret vote of the justices to grant cert and that the court certainly has four, if not five (Roberts). I'd be interested to know what can't be known, i.e., how Roberts would vote concerning cert. I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions about it however for the final vote even if I knew how Roberts might vote on cert.

BTW, Obama is not abusing any power. The House majority are abusing their power up, down and all around. Next you too will be hollering for impeachment, setting the country further adrift. A lot of closet right wingers are waiting for the outcome of the November elections before declaring themselves.

Edited July 24, 201411 yr by Publicus

The case may never get to the SCOTUS if the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ruling of its 3-judge panel that ruled 2-1 against the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009, Obamacare, as the Obama administration has requested it to do.

Is that the court that Obama stacked with his own judges by any chance?

Rather than dance around your question, the answer is a resounding "YES".

Of the 11 Judges, four are Republican appointees and 7 are Democratic appointees.

Of the 7 Democratic appointees, 4 of them are Obama appointees.

Three of them gained Senate approval after Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) rammed through the nuclear option on Senate confirmations in November 2013.

The case may never get to the SCOTUS if the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ruling of its 3-judge panel that ruled 2-1 against the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009, Obamacare, as the Obama administration has requested it to do.

Is that the court that Obama stacked with his own judges by any chance?

Rather than dance around your question, the answer is a resounding "YES".

Of the 11 Judges, four are Republican appointees and 7 are Democratic appointees.

Of the 7 Democratic appointees, 4 of them are Obama appointees.

Three of them gained Senate approval after Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) rammed through the nuclear option on Senate confirmations in November 2013.

The Senate approved the judges after ending the Republican party filibuster against filling the three vacancies on the appeals court.

Republican party obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism in the Senate got blown away in this instance, yes. Rammed through, no, not so. The Senate majority voted to change the Senate's rules. That's normal, routine, unexceptional.

Still, the Senate doesn't change its rules every day, so it was a fully considered decision to make the changes. For one thing, the court needed 3 judges to replace retired ones. Filibustering that is counterproductive, absurd, irresponsible.

The case may never get to the SCOTUS if the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ruling of its 3-judge panel that ruled 2-1 against the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009, Obamacare, as the Obama administration has requested it to do.

Is that the court that Obama stacked with his own judges by any chance?

Rather than dance around your question, the answer is a resounding "YES".

Of the 11 Judges, four are Republican appointees and 7 are Democratic appointees.

Of the 7 Democratic appointees, 4 of them are Obama appointees.

Three of them gained Senate approval after Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) rammed through the nuclear option on Senate confirmations in November 2013.

The Senate approved the judges after ending the Republican party filibuster against filling the three vacancies on the appeals court.

Republican party obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism in the Senate got blown away in this instance, yes. Rammed through, no, not so. The Senate majority voted to change the Senate's rules. That's normal, routine, unexceptional.

Still, the Senate doesn't change its rules every day, so it was a fully considered decision to make the changes. For one thing, the court needed 3 judges to replace retired ones. Filibustering that is counterproductive, absurd, irresponsible.

The rule on cloture had been in effect since 1919 and had proven workable for both parties for nearly a century.

The rule has been changed two times in 95 years.

It originally called for two-thirds of the Senators voting to invoke cloture.

That rule was lowered in 1975 by the Democrat majority to a three-fifths vote requirement. A drop from 67 votes to 60 votes.

The rule was lowered again in 2013 by the Democrat majority to a simple majority. A drop from 60 votes to 51.

Two changes in 95 years is hardly "normal, routine, unexceptional". A "fully considered decision to make the changes" seemingly to benefit only the Democratic Party power base, could also be considered "counterproductive, absurd and irresponsible."

That's why it's called the Nuclear Option.

.

Is that the court that Obama stacked with his own judges by any chance?

Rather than dance around your question, the answer is a resounding "YES".

Of the 11 Judges, four are Republican appointees and 7 are Democratic appointees.

Of the 7 Democratic appointees, 4 of them are Obama appointees.

Three of them gained Senate approval after Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) rammed through the nuclear option on Senate confirmations in November 2013.

The Senate approved the judges after ending the Republican party filibuster against filling the three vacancies on the appeals court.

Republican party obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism in the Senate got blown away in this instance, yes. Rammed through, no, not so. The Senate majority voted to change the Senate's rules. That's normal, routine, unexceptional.

Still, the Senate doesn't change its rules every day, so it was a fully considered decision to make the changes. For one thing, the court needed 3 judges to replace retired ones. Filibustering that is counterproductive, absurd, irresponsible.

The rule on cloture had been in effect since 1919 and had proven workable for both parties for nearly a century.

The rule has been changed two times in 95 years.

It originally called for two-thirds of the Senators voting to invoke cloture.

That rule was lowered in 1975 by the Democrat majority to a three-fifths vote requirement. A drop from 67 votes to 60 votes.

The rule was lowered again in 2013 by the Democrat majority to a simple majority. A drop from 60 votes to 51.

Two changes in 95 years is hardly "normal, routine, unexceptional". A "fully considered decision to make the changes" seemingly to benefit only the Democratic Party power base, could also be considered "counterproductive, absurd and irresponsible."

That's why it's called the Nuclear Option.

Yes I know the history but it's well that you state it for the record. Your last two points are however invalid.

I said changes to Senate rules are "normal, routine, unexceptional." While the discussion was of the cloture rule, I did not specify any particular rule, focusing instead on the point about the Senate voting to change its rules - any rules, any time, for any reason or purpose.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had been operating short several judges for a long time. This was the case only because of the obstructionist politics of one party in the Senate, the Republican party.

Presidents nominate judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. When the Senate is obstinate, obstructive, absolutely partisan and will not vote, thereby harming the operations of the government, the rules eventually get changed to remove obstruction conducted for the sake of obstruction, so that the Senate may conduct its business by voting.

The trend line of the cloture vote has increasingly been towards facilitating it, not to make a cloture vote insurmountable.

The four judges Prez Obama appointed to the circuit appeals court underwent due and regular processes and each judge succeeded a retiring or otherwise departing judge, thereby filling existing vacancies, all four of 'em. Prez Reagan appointed five judges to this court. The Presidents Bush together appointed five judges to it.

Edited July 24, 201411 yr by Publicus

Rather than dance around your question, the answer is a resounding "YES".

Of the 11 Judges, four are Republican appointees and 7 are Democratic appointees.

Of the 7 Democratic appointees, 4 of them are Obama appointees.

Three of them gained Senate approval after Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) rammed through the nuclear option on Senate confirmations in November 2013.

The Senate approved the judges after ending the Republican party filibuster against filling the three vacancies on the appeals court.

Republican party obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism in the Senate got blown away in this instance, yes. Rammed through, no, not so. The Senate majority voted to change the Senate's rules. That's normal, routine, unexceptional.

Still, the Senate doesn't change its rules every day, so it was a fully considered decision to make the changes. For one thing, the court needed 3 judges to replace retired ones. Filibustering that is counterproductive, absurd, irresponsible.

The rule on cloture had been in effect since 1919 and had proven workable for both parties for nearly a century.

The rule has been changed two times in 95 years.

It originally called for two-thirds of the Senators voting to invoke cloture.

That rule was lowered in 1975 by the Democrat majority to a three-fifths vote requirement. A drop from 67 votes to 60 votes.

The rule was lowered again in 2013 by the Democrat majority to a simple majority. A drop from 60 votes to 51.

Two changes in 95 years is hardly "normal, routine, unexceptional". A "fully considered decision to make the changes" seemingly to benefit only the Democratic Party power base, could also be considered "counterproductive, absurd and irresponsible."

That's why it's called the Nuclear Option.

Yes I know the history but it's well that you state it for the record. Your last two points are however invalid.

I said changes to Senate rules are "normal, routine, unexceptional." While the discussion was of the cloture rule, I did not specify any particular rule, focusing instead on the point about the Senate voting to change its rules - any rules, any time, for any reason or purpose.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had been operating short several judges for a long time. This was the case only because of the obstructionist politics of one party in the Senate, the Republican party.

Presidents nominate judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. When the Senate is obstinate, obstructive, absolutely partisan and will not vote, thereby harming the operations of the government, the rules eventually get changed to remove obstruction conducted for the sake of obstruction, so that the Senate may conduct its business by voting.

The trend line of the cloture vote has increasingly been towards facilitating it, not to make a cloture vote insurmountable.

The four judges Prez Obama appointed to the circuit appeals court underwent due and regular processes and each judge succeeded a retiring or otherwise departing judge, thereby filling existing vacancies, all four of 'em. Prez Reagan appointed five judges to this court. The Presidents Bush together appointed five judges to it.

Actually, President Reagan appointed eight to the DC Circuit.

President G. H. W. Bush appointed four to the court..

President G. W.. Bush appointed three to the court.

...and...

Prez Obama has appointed four.

<snip>

Still, the Senate doesn't change its rules every day, so it was a fully considered decision to make the changes. For one thing, the court needed 3 judges to replace retired ones. Filibustering that is counterproductive, absurd, irresponsible.

Talking about filibustering judicial nominees, a little history lesson might be in order.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gang of 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gang of 14 was a phrase coined to describe the bipartisan group of Senators in the 109th United States Congress who successfully negotiated a compromise in the spring of 2005 to avoid the deployment of the so-called "nuclear option" over an organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats. The term alludes to the phrase "Gang of Four", used in China to refer to four ex-leaders blamed for the abuses during the rule of Mao Zedong.

Senate Democrats used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by Republican President George W. Bush. In the Republican-controlled 108th Congress, ten Bush judicial nominees were filibustered by the minority Democrats: Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III, and Janice Rogers Brown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

<snip>

Still, the Senate doesn't change its rules every day, so it was a fully considered decision to make the changes. For one thing, the court needed 3 judges to replace retired ones. Filibustering that is counterproductive, absurd, irresponsible.

Talking about filibustering judicial nominees, a little history lesson might be in order.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gang of 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gang of 14 was a phrase coined to describe the bipartisan group of Senators in the 109th United States Congress who successfully negotiated a compromise in the spring of 2005 to avoid the deployment of the so-called "nuclear option" over an organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats. The term alludes to the phrase "Gang of Four", used in China to refer to four ex-leaders blamed for the abuses during the rule of Mao Zedong.

Senate Democrats used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by Republican President George W. Bush. In the Republican-controlled 108th Congress, ten Bush judicial nominees were filibustered by the minority Democrats: Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III, and Janice Rogers Brown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

I myself don't often quote Wikipedia.

The filibuster was also used extensively by Democratic party southern segregationist Senators to stop civil rights legislation or to delay it indefinitely. I grew up with the filibuster, never liked it, never thought it was a good idea or practice regardless of which side of the aisle used it or for whichever purpose(s).

It's a 1919 anachronism that had a specific purpose during the 20th century time when some Democrats were conservative and some Republicans were liberals. More than a few in either respect. Those daze / days are the nostalgic good old daze some pine on about and which never in fact existed. Those days are simply history.

The issues now are black or white. Gray areas are few if any. The voting now is red or blue with a purple thrown in intermittently.

The Republicans in the Senate used the filibuster to try to prevent Prez Obama filling three vacancies on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Democratic party and its Senate leadership did well to reduce the filibuster to a common ordinary vote of 51 Senators. That's the effective next best thing to disposing of the filibuster altogether.

Each side is impacted and neither side gains in the long run. That's a win for democracy.

Edited July 24, 201411 yr by Publicus

Rather than dance around your question, the answer is a resounding "YES".

Of the 11 Judges, four are Republican appointees and 7 are Democratic appointees.

Of the 7 Democratic appointees, 4 of them are Obama appointees.

Three of them gained Senate approval after Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) rammed through the nuclear option on Senate confirmations in November 2013.

The Senate approved the judges after ending the Republican party filibuster against filling the three vacancies on the appeals court.

Republican party obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism in the Senate got blown away in this instance, yes. Rammed through, no, not so. The Senate majority voted to change the Senate's rules. That's normal, routine, unexceptional.

Still, the Senate doesn't change its rules every day, so it was a fully considered decision to make the changes. For one thing, the court needed 3 judges to replace retired ones. Filibustering that is counterproductive, absurd, irresponsible.

The rule on cloture had been in effect since 1919 and had proven workable for both parties for nearly a century.

The rule has been changed two times in 95 years.

It originally called for two-thirds of the Senators voting to invoke cloture.

That rule was lowered in 1975 by the Democrat majority to a three-fifths vote requirement. A drop from 67 votes to 60 votes.

The rule was lowered again in 2013 by the Democrat majority to a simple majority. A drop from 60 votes to 51.

Two changes in 95 years is hardly "normal, routine, unexceptional". A "fully considered decision to make the changes" seemingly to benefit only the Democratic Party power base, could also be considered "counterproductive, absurd and irresponsible."

That's why it's called the Nuclear Option.

Actually, President Reagan appointed eight to the DC Circuit.

President G. H. W. Bush appointed four to the court..

President G. W.. Bush appointed three to the court.

...and...

Prez Obama has appointed four.

And how many days did each judge serve on the bench?

Don't leave us hanging like this

Google is your friend.

Do they give "Hero Number One" pins for not quoting Wikipedia now?

Edited July 24, 201411 yr by chuckd

Who doesn't know Google is our friend. It's banned in the CCP-PRC where netizens have to route their computers to Google Hong Kong where access is free and complete.

Speaking of Googling, I'd recommend the following reading:

SCOTUS blog author Tom Goldstein says the Supreme Court justices are likely to uphold the subsidies portion of the ACA. Goldstein’s take is particularly important because his blog’s track record of covering and predicting Supreme Court decisions has been lauded by a number of independent organizations. The blog was one of the few outlets to accurately forecast the Supreme Court’s landmark 2012 decision that upholds the basic tenets of the ACA.

"If the Supreme Court does step in, I think that the administration will win," Goldstein writes in a new post. "But it will be close. There is a good chance that the case will be decided by the same thin five-to-four majority that upheld the constitutionality of the ACA two years ago."

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926339/no-the-halbig-case-isnt-going-to-destroy-obamacare