Chief Justice Brutus Roberts

[PoliticalChic]

"And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State," and which defines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not."
In Upholding Obamacare s Subsidies Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law Again - Hit Run Reason.com

Your attempt at destroying me has started by you citing a word-changing liar. The phrase, "established by a State," does not exist in the ACA or in Scalia's dissent. The phrase used is "established by the State," and 'the State' can be and was interpreted by the SCOTUS to mean 'the government' because it is not referring to a plurality of states. Mark Levin always refers to central government proponents and liberals as statists. Are you saying Mark Levin is an idiot?

"And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State," and which defines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not."
In Upholding Obamacare s Subsidies Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law Again - Hit Run Reason.com


For clarity...are you a fool or a liar?


Thanks for clearing that up....

So, you're simply a garden variety Liberal liar.

Not a lot of room in that category.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[ClosedCaption]

The German view of governance: The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).

There she goes again

 

[007]

Yep, your knowledge is imbecilic in this area.

To verify that you are an imbecile....let all readers note that you were unable to deny any of the indicia of Progressivism listed in the OP.

Because he IS a progressive.

His gig has been up for quite some time. He's a liar, a charlatan and a smart ass little twat.

SCOTUS has CLEARLY demonstrated that it too has an agenda, and is every bit as CORRUPT as the other branches of government. None of them can be trusted to do their job anymore, and I'm afraid the only way we'll ever straighten it back out is another revolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The German view of governance: The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).

There she goes again

Another brilliant and insightful post by the 'Twenty Below' IQ.



This hanger-on never brings anything to the table.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep, your knowledge is imbecilic in this area.

To verify that you are an imbecile....let all readers note that you were unable to deny any of the indicia of Progressivism listed in the OP.

Because he IS a progressive.

His gig has been up for quite some time. He's a liar, a charlatan and a smart ass little twat.

SCOTUS has CLEARLY demonstrated that it too has an agenda, and is every bit as CORRUPT as the other branches of government. None of them can be trusted to do their job anymore, and I'm afraid the only way we'll ever straighten it back out is another revolution.

Time to reform the so-called 'Supreme Court.'

 

[ClosedCaption]

The German view of governance: The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).

There she goes again

Another brilliant and insightful post by the 'Twenty Below' IQ.



This hanger-on never brings anything to the table.

This is a PC post in a nutshell

 

[PoliticalChic]

The German view of governance: The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).

There she goes again

Another brilliant and insightful post by the 'Twenty Below' IQ.



This hanger-on never brings anything to the table.

This is a PC post in a nutshell

"This is a PC post in a nutshell."
Finally!

Your area of expertise revealed: nutshells.


No wonder your posts lack substance, 'Twenty Below.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sour Grapes from a loser is all the OP is

.Exchange stablished by the government" and "exchange established by the state" aren't literally synonymous terms, but they so embody one another that the latter is meant to function as a perfect substitute for the former. That's why Scalia's new favorite sentence of the Affordable Care Act doesn’t really mean people in states with federal exchanges should be denied subsidies. In every other context, including his own dissent, Scalia understands that a sentence's meaning often arises from more than just the order and way its words are arranged on a page.

Scalia s Dissent Disproves His Own Reading of the Affordable Care Act The New Republic

Roberts saved his court from being nutty like all the RWnutjobs that run amok in this country.

Roberts saved Congressional Republicans from having to rescue the ACA.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

PC 11738599

For clarity..

Read the decision, I go by the original source and the ACA itself. You went by a source who lied about the wording.

Read the actual court issued documents and then ask yourself why you trusted some right wing liar and then re-posted it as if it was true,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OC 11738599

Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not."

That is not true. Roberts did not rework or add anything to it. In the context of the entire law the court majority read "the State" and detrrmined the word has dual meaning and it is easily and fairly interpretable that Congress intended 'the state' to mean the Federal Government. Indeed Scalia, two years earlier, saw the very same intent by Congresd in the law. That is not adding anything - it is using context to determine that a word meant this instead of that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OC 11738599

Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not."

That is not true. Roberts did not rework or add anything to it. In the context of the entire law the court majority read "the State" and detrrmined the word has dual meaning and it is easily and fairly interpretable that Congress intended 'the state' to mean the Federal Government. Indeed Scalia, two years earlier, saw the very same intent by Congresd in the law. That is not adding anything - it is using context to determine that a word meant this instead of that.

You lying fool.....the NYTimes must be lying about it, too, huh?

"The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0

 

[NotfooledbyW]

...the NYTimes must be lying about it, too, huh?

"The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0

No The NYTimes expressed the phrase exactly as it exists in the ACA. It is your liar that you cited who wrote "an exchange established by a state.” That is rewriting the phrase in order to deceive clueless RWers like you into believing his continued false argument that Roberts re-wrote the law. Like I told you Roberts neither re-wrote nor added any language to the law. The word 'state' can be used in reference to an individual state or the United States as a whole and its central federal government. Roberts merely accepts the secondary meaning of the word because of the context of the law as a whole. And Scalia agreed with the intent two years ago so he is the biggest fool on the bench right now.


From your link to the NYTimes that backs me up and crushes your looney tune liar that you started this thread with. He didn't fact check his own work


"The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act that created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans. Some states set up their own exchanges, but about three dozen allowed the federal government to step in to run them."

"The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”"

"Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiffs had strong arguments about the plain meaning of the contested words. But he wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”"


According to your NYT link also The challengers we're doomed from the beginning


"the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled against the challengers.

Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing for a three-judge panel of the court, said the contested phrase was “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” That meant, he said, that the I.R.S. interpretation was entitled to deference.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was more forceful. “This is not a case for the I.R.S.,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “It is instead our task to determine the correct reading.”"

Do you understand now that determining 'correct reading' is not adding to or re-writing the legislation as your OP liar has apparently stupefied you into believing that it is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...the NYTimes must be lying about it, too, huh?

"The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0

No The NYTimes expressed the phrase exactly as it exists in the ACA. It is your liar that you cited who wrote "an exchange established by a state.” That is rewriting the phrase in order to deceive clueless RWers like you into believing his continued false argument that Roberts re-wrote the law. Like I told you Roberts neither re-wrote nor added any language to the law. The word 'state' can be used in reference to an individual state or the United States as a whole and its central federal government. Roberts merely accepts the secondary meaning of the word because of the context of the law as a whole. And Scalia agreed with the intent two years ago so he is the biggest fool on the bench right now.


From your link to the NYTimes that backs me up and crushes your looney tune liar that you started this thread with. He didn't fact check his own work


"The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act that created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans. Some states set up their own exchanges, but about three dozen allowed the federal government to step in to run them."

"The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”"

"Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiffs had strong arguments about the plain meaning of the contested words. But he wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”"


According to your NYT link also The challengers we're doomed from the beginning


"the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled against the challengers.

Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing for a three-judge panel of the court, said the contested phrase was “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” That meant, he said, that the I.R.S. interpretation was entitled to deference.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was more forceful. “This is not a case for the I.R.S.,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “It is instead our task to determine the correct reading.”"

Do you understand now that determining 'correct reading' is not adding to or re-writing the legislation as your OP liar has apparently stupefied you into believing that it is.

It is very clear that only a state exchange would be eligible for subsidies for its purchaser.

You are a lying fool.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

PC11746641

It is very clear that only a state exchange would be eligible for subsidies for its purchaser. You are a lying fool.

Your beloved Scalia was a lying fool two years ago by you reckoning then when he stated that it was the intent of the ACA to provide Federal exchanges where States to have one. That's what is clear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC11746641

It is very clear that only a state exchange would be eligible for subsidies for its purchaser. You are a lying fool.

Your beloved Scalia was a lying fool two years ago by you reckoning then when he stated that it was the intent of the ACA to provide Federal exchanges where States to have one. That's what is clear.

"It is very clear that only a state exchange would be eligible for subsidies for its purchaser. You are a lying fool."

QED

 

[NotfooledbyW]

PC 11747344

"It is very clear that only a state exchange would be eligible for subsidies for its purchaser. You are a lying fool."

QED

You have no argument. It was in court because it was not clear at all. But it is very clear that the law's intent was to have Federal Exchanges in states that did not create them and the federal government can be referred to as 'the state' because it was singular. "Established by the States" would have been very clear and you would have an argument and may have turned the decision your way. So your liar in the OP you in your ignorance cited claimed the issue was the phrase "established by "a" state". That is a lie to try to make his phony argument sound more real. You fell for it. You are easily fooled by liars.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC 11747344

"It is very clear that only a state exchange would be eligible for subsidies for its purchaser. You are a lying fool."

QED

You have no argument. It was in court because it was not clear at all. But it is very clear that the law's intent was to have Federal Exchanges in states that did not create them and the federal government can be referred to as 'the state' because it was singular. "Established by the States" would have been very clear and you would have an argument and may have turned the decision your way. So your liar in the OP you in your ignorance cited claimed the issue was the phrase "established by "a" state". That is a lie to try to make his phony argument sound more real. You fell for it. You are easily fooled by liars.

I never argue.

I simply explain why I am right.

1. ObamaCare explicitly states that subsidies can only.....ONLY....be give to those who purchase through the exchanges set up by the state.

The wording "...established by the State"

2. 'State' is explained:
"And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State," and whichdefines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia,actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not."In Upholding Obamacare s Subsidies Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law Again - Hit Run Reason.com


And you are a lying sack of sewage.

I'm right about that, too.