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."