Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal
 

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...v-burwell.html

So 6.4 million people keep their health insurance.

i figured they'd rule the subsidies would continue. like i said at a CE class, if the state chose to use the federal exchange, doesn't that then become that states exchange?

there's something wrong tho when legislators pass a bill, and then sue over the language that they put in the bill.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...an_act_of.html

it they aren't yelling 'states rights' it's 'judicial tyranny'. both are used to say 'i don't like it, but i don't have a good reason why, or i don't want to say why because it might tick off some voters'.
:zz:

either way, it's nonsensical.

What I found fascinating about the case is that the plaintiffs named really didn't have standing to even be a part of the case:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...eputation.html

There were people who thought the Supreme Court would dismiss based on the plaintiff's not having legal standing to bring the case. Which might have been perceived as a punt. This is better. Also, Scalia's rage is hilarious.

i was worried that they might do that...but i figured they'd only go that route if they didn't want to rule. i'm glad they took the case and ruled that they did.
i've been accused, not on here but elsewhere, of being inconsistent. they say why do you support if you don't like all of the law? and it's because it's a start, hopefully one step on the way to single payer, universal, whatever one wishes to call it.

In summary

"Affordable" does not mean affordable.
"If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" does not mean that if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" does not mean that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
"Penalty" does not mean penalty.
"established by the state" means not established by the state.

You left out a key point...the Supremes validated it again! 6-3 not exactly a cliff-hanger, especially with the hard line right being predictable. While the right was busy hating him, accusing him of being Muslim and a non-citizen, Obama did what so many previous leaders could not..expand health care for the poor and middle class, and while the bill is far from perfect, it beats the hell out of the Republican version....oh, that's right, they don't have an answer, they just oppose Obama's! The party of "no!" can choke on another failure...gives me a happy!

what does jiggery-pokery mean?

so, what would you recommend be done? i keep seeing and hearing repeal and replace.
with what?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-s...ing-blaze-fury

when i read that marshall, who didn't like his cousin jefferson, actually turned his back on ol thomas when administering the oath to the newly elected president, i thought 'how funny'. but that bit of petulance pales in comparison to scalia's tantrum over the aca.
tsk tsk

Because bypassing separation of powers to "fix" a sloppy law (so affordable, it's mandatory!) is absolutely cause for celebration.

Founding principles?

That pic is from the other nite when Obama heard that Trump is running for President and is in 2ND PLACE!:D

What bypassing of separation of powers? What does that even mean?

O. M. G.

You do know that the Republic we used to have prior to today actually divided the powers of government, right?

Enumerated powers, checks and balances, all that stuff we had before political correctness and a 98% liberal press. Coincides with the time when America used to build things.

No, unfortunately, to address this to Ben Franklin, we couldn't keep the Republic.

Scalia's anger was quite justified. He is correct. We are now in a post-Constitutional America. And that should scare everybody. The words mean nothing. The Constitution has been shredded and now it's only the whims of one executive that drives all. Freedom is fading.

Thanks for the laugh.

That's your answer?
You do realize that the repubs are actually relieved at the ruling, because they won't have people asking their ten thousand candidates for president how they're going to fix a mess that won't occur?
And just because you do not like a ruling doesn't mean the system of checks and balances no longer applies.
Perhaps, instead of hyperbolic phrases that say nothing, you can explain how the ruling is incorrect and at odds with the constitution? On what basis should they have ruled in the opppsite?

Laugh it up, this is still the "soft tyranny" phase. The more classic tyrannical stuff comes later.

It's sad that so many understand so little about how government was supposed to function. But hey, it was established by angry old white slaveowners so who cares? Now give me my free stuff.

The SC could have acted as though they understood their job, and told one party of the legislative branch that when they ram through major legislation with no support from across the aisle (or from the majority of the public for that matter), and that they haven't read and don't understand, they will have to live with their mistakes. Instead, they became unelected legislators, rewriting key provisions of law based upon perceived intent, and let's be honest, political consequences.

I'm guessing we heard pretty much the same gloom and doom following such "abuse of power" as "Brown v Board of Education" and "Roe v Wade" and I expect conservative's heads will explode if the Court rules in favor of gay marriage. Somehow I think the country will survive...maybe the Republicans can try impeachment again, that worked so well.

i understand it perfectly.

back to the topic. how was the ruling incorrect? as for the legislation, it was passed, legally, by both houses of congress. you know, the ones who wrote the law, and discussed it? or are you suggesting it was passed as a 'gotcha', so they could then crush it in the scotus?

by the way, here's a great article about the arguments in the case:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...after_all.html

"But he seemed quite taken with a backup federalist argument made in numerous friend-of-the-court briefs. This argument stated that the law must be read to permit subsidies in states with no exchanges, because otherwise it would be unconstitutional. If the law forced states to set up exchanges before they received subsidies, Congress would be coercing a state to either create an exchange or risk sending its insurance market into a death spiral. And coercion this extreme violates the federalist principles enshrined in the Constitution."

of course they did.
now, if you'll excuse me, i have to go find my umbrella. it seems the sky is falling.

This is how you respond to joeydb, and yet somehow my O. M. G. reply to your not being familiar with the concept of separation of powers is inadequate?

Separation of powers, or checks and balances, were designed to prevent government from wielding uninhibited power. Progs, understandably, have never been fond of the concept which is why they are always claiming that the Constitution is a "living document" whose principles can be changed to suit their whims. In this instance, scotus has decided that it is its function is to make a law work, not because of how it was written, but in spite of how it was written, simply because they want it to work. They decided that in the case of the ACA, "[A] fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan," and since the ACA desires "to improve health insurance markets," if at all possible it should be taken to mean whatever one believes it means in order to make it work, despite of its troubled legislative history (as in relying on the public's ignorance). This is known as judicial activism, or legislating from the bench. It's not as if it's never happened before, but I expect that this example of it, in such sweeping legislation, means that we can expect to see more in the future.

again, i know how it works.
i hope you read the article i posted, explaining some of what the justices considered.
but you probably didn't.
again, not liking the ruling doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or that our system is broken.
when the scotus ruled on corporate free speech, and on hobby lobby, i disagreed with their decision. i didn't bemoan legislating from the bench.

let's look at it this way:

who wrote the law, discussed the law, amended the law, voted on the law, passed the law?
congress.
who enacted the law, set up the mechanisms for the law? congress

who can change the law, repeal the law? congress.

what did scotus do? uphold the law. so, therefore, ignoring all that congress did, scotus is legislating from the bench?

hogwash

I don't believe you do.


Yes, it laid out the majority's decision well. If the legislature passes a law that we favor but is unconstitutional, well then by golly let's reinterpret it (in spite of how it was written) and make it constitutional.

You seem to be under the impression that my distaste for the scotus' ruling is that it didn't overturn the ACA, when my far and away larger disappointment is that judges are acting as unelected legislators. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you.

Perhaps that's because they didn't.

Now, I have a show to listen to.
:D

Democrats.

Democrats.

Republicans, if they can find a better way (and their balls).

Re-wrote the law.

Based on what is aca unconstitutional? You've said it is, but what makes it so? Based on what should the scotus have tossed it? And scotus didn't rewrite a thing.

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

This is a great week for tyranny.

"I'm scared, lol repubs cry harder."

We're all gonna be crying sooner or later. Especially the plebs who trust their government and defend it to the max.

I don't live here as do you, and just so you know, I may not be online again for days.

The ACA would have been unconstitutional had not the majority reinterpreted/rewritten the states' requirement. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Of course it was rewritten, first turning the individual mandate into a tax, then reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that "established by the state" means "established by the federal government," because had they not ruled in such a manner (as you just said) it would have been unconstitutional. Never mind that Gruber said that it specifically was written that way intending to force states into supporting scotuscare.

oh, here we go...worrying about people posting often.
yeah, when time is slow at times i can get on here. and i love to visit the site when something has gone on that rankles some. hehe. it's hilarious.
anyway, you and pants and rudeboy can have your little conspiracy fan club and whine about me and GR.
i'll sit back and enjoy more people having equality. in the land of the free, where all are supposed to be equal, but still have to fight for it.

now this, this is fantastic:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Justice Kennedy

You know, in 1836, a gag order was instituted in the House, barring all discussion of slavery. Wonder why those against getting health care to those without didn't try to pass a rule like that?

This is incorrect. Nothing was rewritten. They didn't 'force' it on the states, the law was written and voted on by the states reps in congress. It can be repealed by them if they so choose.

sorta like lying to get us in a endless war with Iraq?

:tro:

:tro::tro:...Post of the month..

Okay, but perhaps you can understand how setting arbitrary time limits for responses is unrealistic for some of us:

By that standard, you've had 10 days to tell us which Republicans in the huffpo article "tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims," as the article put it. No matter. That was then. This is now. I read your article. Here's one for you.

The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html

jindal and huckster definitely have turned this into a religious thing...as has the texas AG, cruz, etc.

as for the aca, it can be repealed. and an opinion piece is just that, the writers opinion. congrats, it matches your opinion. i'll spare you links to articles that don't hold that opinion.
not an ardent supporter, i think now and have always thought the aca isa convoluted mess. but it brought coverage to a lot more people, and is all they thought they could do for now. i'll keep waiting and hoping for universal health care.

I haven't seen Senator Cruz do that. Link?


As yours did for you, yes?

i think the one slate article i posted gave the legal reasoning for them doing what they did....not sure it's an opinion piece. maybe it is.
i've disagreed with other rulings, unlike cruz, huck, jindal, etc. but unlike them, i don't see a reason to blow up the scotus.