Awesome! Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent, “We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUSc

[RosieS]

The RW butthurt is STRONG in this thread.

I hear Canada is lovely this time of year.

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lawd split ya!

Regards from Rosie

 

[Stephanie]

I fail to see how this is "awesome" in any way. At the end of the day this is just another crushing defeat for the American people.

Scallia's words do absolutely nothing to return lost freedoms to Americans.

If conservative politicians aren't smart enough to put forth a UNIFIED plan for the upcoming election but rather resort to tearing each other apart to further themselves then we deserve to be ruled over by the democrats

I was just reading this: kind of crazy but:
snip:
Silver lining: SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater
posted at 11:21 am on June 25, 2015 by Allahpundit



Before we get to the substance, can we pause for a moment to acknowledge that the big A totally called this three days ago on Twitter?



That was an easy call if you were willing to assume the most cynical motives for each justice. The four liberals would vote like good lockstep liberals, as they always do. The three conservatives would vote like lockstep conservatives as they usually do. Kennedy, the centrist, would naturally be more reluctant to torpedo the law after two years of implementation and millions of enrollments than he was in 2012, when it was still on the launch pad.

And Roberts, having staked his judicial legacy on his decisive vote in the mandate case three years ago, wasn’t about to pull an Emily Litella now and undo the new health-care regime that he enabled. In fact, if either Roberts or Kennedy persuaded the other on this, I’d bet it was the former who persuaded the latter.

Another 5-4 decision would have only underscored the 5-4 frailty of ObamaCare after the mandate decision in 2012. A 6-3 decision signals that the law’s here to stay. “Why not provide some certainty by voting with us,” Roberts could have said to Kennedy, “if the subsidies are going to be upheld anyway?” Maybe that’s what cinched Kennedy. ObamaCare is here to stay. Might as well get onboard.

all of it with comments here:
Silver lining SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater Hot Air

 

[Stephanie]

The RW butthurt is STRONG in this thread.

I hear Canada is lovely this time of year.

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lawd split ya!

Regards from Rosie

nasty little thing. you could care less about anyone but yourself

 

[Little-Acorn]

Awesome! Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent, “We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare”…

Scalia seems to be pretty good at closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.

 

[OKTexas]

So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?

lol, retards.

Like I said in another thread, when the court starts ignoring black letter law, we're all in trouble. It might have gone the way you wanted this time, what about the next?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

we the people just got a big FU from the Supremes. We now have a dictator (Obama) and HIS posse of bunch of black robe tyrants.

SNIP;

Awesome! Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent, “We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare”…

Scalia +1,000,000

1. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”

2. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

3. “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”

4. “And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

all of it here:
Awesome Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare Weasel Zippers

Justice Scalia is responding to the delusion that is sweeping the nation in an unimaginable pace.

We can rest assured from this ruling that the SCOTUS will be droppin' trow and comin' FULLY OUT in for the destruction of the meaning of Marriage and at that point, the US Government will have no further kinship with principles that define America or the individuals who adhere to such, OKA: Americans.

 

[BlueGin]

Maybe liberals will talk about something other than how racist America is for a few hours.

5 min tops.

 

[Stephanie]

So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?

lol, retards.

Like I said in another thread, when the court starts ignoring black letter law, we're all in trouble. It might have gone the way you wanted this time, what about the next?

or we get told to don't let the door hit ya

 

[boedicca]

I'm calling it SCOBamaCare.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Awesome! Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent, “We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare”…

Scalia seems to be pretty good at closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.

What's that supposed to mean? Scalia is among a tiny minority on the court... what else is he supposed to do?

 

[bendog]

I fail to see how this is "awesome" in any way. At the end of the day this is just another crushing defeat for the American people.

Scallia's words do absolutely nothing to return lost freedoms to Americans.

If conservative politicians aren't smart enough to put forth a UNIFIED plan for the upcoming election but rather resort to tearing each other apart to further themselves then we deserve to be ruled over by the democrats

I was just reading this: kind of crazy but:
snip:
Silver lining: SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater
posted at 11:21 am on June 25, 2015 by Allahpundit



Before we get to the substance, can we pause for a moment to acknowledge that the big A totally called this three days ago on Twitter?



That was an easy call if you were willing to assume the most cynical motives for each justice. The four liberals would vote like good lockstep liberals, as they always do. The three conservatives would vote like lockstep conservatives as they usually do. Kennedy, the centrist, would naturally be more reluctant to torpedo the law after two years of implementation and millions of enrollments than he was in 2012, when it was still on the launch pad.

And Roberts, having staked his judicial legacy on his decisive vote in the mandate case three years ago, wasn’t about to pull an Emily Litella now and undo the new health-care regime that he enabled. In fact, if either Roberts or Kennedy persuaded the other on this, I’d bet it was the former who persuaded the latter.

Another 5-4 decision would have only underscored the 5-4 frailty of ObamaCare after the mandate decision in 2012. A 6-3 decision signals that the law’s here to stay. “Why not provide some certainty by voting with us,” Roberts could have said to Kennedy, “if the subsidies are going to be upheld anyway?” Maybe that’s what cinched Kennedy. ObamaCare is here to stay. Might as well get onboard.

all of it with comments here:
Silver lining SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater Hot Air

Or maybe, just maybe they figured, well, we have two options. We can construe 4 words to undue the entire purpose of what everyone agrees was the purpose of the damn thing in the first place, OR we can construe the 4 words, that everyone agrees were a drafting error, in the way congress intended the law to be construed.

 

[Camp]

Scalia is a sore loser. Sounds like a crybaby attention whore. Why hasn't he been impeached by now?

 

[BlueGin]

we the people just got a big FU from the Supremes. We now have a dictator (Obama) and HIS posse of bunch of black robe tyrants.

SNIP;

Awesome! Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent, “We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare”…

Scalia +1,000,000

1. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”

2. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

3. “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”

4. “And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

all of it here:
Awesome Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare Weasel Zippers

Now, all of you patriotic idiots, be sure to run to the polls on election day and elect and re-elect professional politicians to run this once great nation. What in hell is it going to take to wake folks up?

I think it's too late anyway. these politicians knew it, when they PUT in someone like Obama and hasn't hardly done a damn thing TO STOP him

we've been SOLD OUT

Obama was elected. Not "put in". Bush was "put in". It's why Obama has been successful and Bush wasn't.

we the people just got a big FU from the Supremes. We now have a dictator (Obama) and HIS posse of bunch of black robe tyrants.

SNIP;

Awesome! Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent, “We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare”…

Scalia +1,000,000

1. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”

2. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

3. “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”

4. “And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

all of it here:
Awesome Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare Weasel Zippers

Now, all of you patriotic idiots, be sure to run to the polls on election day and elect and re-elect professional politicians to run this once great nation. What in hell is it going to take to wake folks up?

I think it's too late anyway. these politicians knew it, when they PUT in someone like Obama and hasn't hardly done a damn thing TO STOP him

we've been SOLD OUT

Obama was elected. Not "put in". Bush was "put in". It's why Obama has been successful and Bush wasn't.

Wrong. He was only given the nomination because he stole delegates from Hillary Clinton. The empty suit remains a fraud.

 

[boedicca]

He is rightly outraged. When the SCOTUS starts down this path of providing preferential treatment to laws it likes it becomes just another political hack branch of government open to corruption.

Yep. The Rule of Law is definitely on life support right now. But it's not over. 2016 needs to be the focus. SCOBamaCare belongs entirely to the Dems. As more and more people see that they are paying more for less care, the blame needs to be placed squarely where it belongs: The Democrat Party and its Big Pharma and Big Insurance cronies. And that slimy weasel Jonathan Gruber.

 

[Stephanie]

I'm calling it SCOBamaCare.

I've been calling IT OSCAMcare forever.
Gruber was right and we see them in this thread and the base of the Democrat party
3 Jonathan Gruber Videos: Americans "Too Stupid to Understand" Obamacare

 

[Freewill]

I fail to see how this is "awesome" in any way. At the end of the day this is just another crushing defeat for the American people.

Scallia's words do absolutely nothing to return lost freedoms to Americans.

If conservative politicians aren't smart enough to put forth a UNIFIED plan for the upcoming election but rather resort to tearing each other apart to further themselves then we deserve to be ruled over by the democrats

I was just reading this: kind of crazy but:
snip:
Silver lining: SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater
posted at 11:21 am on June 25, 2015 by Allahpundit



Before we get to the substance, can we pause for a moment to acknowledge that the big A totally called this three days ago on Twitter?



That was an easy call if you were willing to assume the most cynical motives for each justice. The four liberals would vote like good lockstep liberals, as they always do. The three conservatives would vote like lockstep conservatives as they usually do. Kennedy, the centrist, would naturally be more reluctant to torpedo the law after two years of implementation and millions of enrollments than he was in 2012, when it was still on the launch pad.

And Roberts, having staked his judicial legacy on his decisive vote in the mandate case three years ago, wasn’t about to pull an Emily Litella now and undo the new health-care regime that he enabled. In fact, if either Roberts or Kennedy persuaded the other on this, I’d bet it was the former who persuaded the latter.

Another 5-4 decision would have only underscored the 5-4 frailty of ObamaCare after the mandate decision in 2012. A 6-3 decision signals that the law’s here to stay. “Why not provide some certainty by voting with us,” Roberts could have said to Kennedy, “if the subsidies are going to be upheld anyway?” Maybe that’s what cinched Kennedy. ObamaCare is here to stay. Might as well get onboard.

all of it with comments here:
Silver lining SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater Hot Air

Or maybe, just maybe they figured, well, we have two options. We can construe 4 words to undue the entire purpose of what everyone agrees was the purpose of the damn thing in the first place, OR we can construe the 4 words, that everyone agrees were a drafting error, in the way congress intended the law to be construed.

Was it really a drafting error? Do you have a proof of that? The words were in there and they were plain as day. It is obvious as to why they were put in there, it was an attempt to force states to set up exchanges. When Only 16 did it was ought oh time. Of course the writers of the bill wanted subsidizes available to everyone but that is NOT what they wrote in the bill because they were playing games, in my opinion.

The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor and kicked it back to Congress who would have immediately fast tracked a bill correcting the stupid wording. That is how it is suppose to work.

 

[boedicca]

I fail to see how this is "awesome" in any way. At the end of the day this is just another crushing defeat for the American people.

Scallia's words do absolutely nothing to return lost freedoms to Americans.

If conservative politicians aren't smart enough to put forth a UNIFIED plan for the upcoming election but rather resort to tearing each other apart to further themselves then we deserve to be ruled over by the democrats

I was just reading this: kind of crazy but:
snip:
Silver lining: SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater
posted at 11:21 am on June 25, 2015 by Allahpundit



Before we get to the substance, can we pause for a moment to acknowledge that the big A totally called this three days ago on Twitter?



That was an easy call if you were willing to assume the most cynical motives for each justice. The four liberals would vote like good lockstep liberals, as they always do. The three conservatives would vote like lockstep conservatives as they usually do. Kennedy, the centrist, would naturally be more reluctant to torpedo the law after two years of implementation and millions of enrollments than he was in 2012, when it was still on the launch pad.

And Roberts, having staked his judicial legacy on his decisive vote in the mandate case three years ago, wasn’t about to pull an Emily Litella now and undo the new health-care regime that he enabled. In fact, if either Roberts or Kennedy persuaded the other on this, I’d bet it was the former who persuaded the latter.

Another 5-4 decision would have only underscored the 5-4 frailty of ObamaCare after the mandate decision in 2012. A 6-3 decision signals that the law’s here to stay. “Why not provide some certainty by voting with us,” Roberts could have said to Kennedy, “if the subsidies are going to be upheld anyway?” Maybe that’s what cinched Kennedy. ObamaCare is here to stay. Might as well get onboard.

all of it with comments here:
Silver lining SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater Hot Air

Or maybe, just maybe they figured, well, we have two options. We can construe 4 words to undue the entire purpose of what everyone agrees was the purpose of the damn thing in the first place, OR we can construe the 4 words, that everyone agrees were a drafting error, in the way congress intended the law to be construed.

Was it really a drafting error? Do you have a proof of that? The words were in there and they were plain as day. It is obvious as to why they were put in there, it was an attempt to force states to set up exchanges. When Only 16 did it was ought oh time. Of course the writers of the bill wanted subsidizes available to everyone but that is NOT what they wrote in the bill because they were playing games, in my opinion.

The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor and kicked it back to Congress who would have immediately fast tracked a bill correcting the stupid wording. That is how it is suppose to work.

The drafting error claim is total political spin.

During the legislative process, one of the hammers used to coerce states into setting up exchanges was the fact that their residents wouldn't receive subsidies if the state hadn't done so. Even The Gruber said so.

 

[Freewill]

I fail to see how this is "awesome" in any way. At the end of the day this is just another crushing defeat for the American people.

Scallia's words do absolutely nothing to return lost freedoms to Americans.

If conservative politicians aren't smart enough to put forth a UNIFIED plan for the upcoming election but rather resort to tearing each other apart to further themselves then we deserve to be ruled over by the democrats

I was just reading this: kind of crazy but:
snip:
Silver lining: SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater
posted at 11:21 am on June 25, 2015 by Allahpundit



Before we get to the substance, can we pause for a moment to acknowledge that the big A totally called this three days ago on Twitter?



That was an easy call if you were willing to assume the most cynical motives for each justice. The four liberals would vote like good lockstep liberals, as they always do. The three conservatives would vote like lockstep conservatives as they usually do. Kennedy, the centrist, would naturally be more reluctant to torpedo the law after two years of implementation and millions of enrollments than he was in 2012, when it was still on the launch pad.

And Roberts, having staked his judicial legacy on his decisive vote in the mandate case three years ago, wasn’t about to pull an Emily Litella now and undo the new health-care regime that he enabled. In fact, if either Roberts or Kennedy persuaded the other on this, I’d bet it was the former who persuaded the latter.

Another 5-4 decision would have only underscored the 5-4 frailty of ObamaCare after the mandate decision in 2012. A 6-3 decision signals that the law’s here to stay. “Why not provide some certainty by voting with us,” Roberts could have said to Kennedy, “if the subsidies are going to be upheld anyway?” Maybe that’s what cinched Kennedy. ObamaCare is here to stay. Might as well get onboard.

all of it with comments here:
Silver lining SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater Hot Air

Or maybe, just maybe they figured, well, we have two options. We can construe 4 words to undue the entire purpose of what everyone agrees was the purpose of the damn thing in the first place, OR we can construe the 4 words, that everyone agrees were a drafting error, in the way congress intended the law to be construed.

Was it really a drafting error? Do you have a proof of that? The words were in there and they were plain as day. It is obvious as to why they were put in there, it was an attempt to force states to set up exchanges. When Only 16 did it was ought oh time. Of course the writers of the bill wanted subsidizes available to everyone but that is NOT what they wrote in the bill because they were playing games, in my opinion.

The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor and kicked it back to Congress who would have immediately fast tracked a bill correcting the stupid wording. That is how it is suppose to work.

The drafting error claim is total political spin.

During the legislative process, one of the hammers used to coerce states into setting up exchanges was the fact that their residents wouldn't receive subsidies if the state hadn't done so. Even The Gruber said so.

What is amazing is that bentdog is saying everyone knows it was a drafting error. Simply amazing how the liberals know what everyone else thinks.

 

[bendog]

I fail to see how this is "awesome" in any way. At the end of the day this is just another crushing defeat for the American people.

Scallia's words do absolutely nothing to return lost freedoms to Americans.

If conservative politicians aren't smart enough to put forth a UNIFIED plan for the upcoming election but rather resort to tearing each other apart to further themselves then we deserve to be ruled over by the democrats

I was just reading this: kind of crazy but:
snip:
Silver lining: SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater
posted at 11:21 am on June 25, 2015 by Allahpundit



Before we get to the substance, can we pause for a moment to acknowledge that the big A totally called this three days ago on Twitter?



That was an easy call if you were willing to assume the most cynical motives for each justice. The four liberals would vote like good lockstep liberals, as they always do. The three conservatives would vote like lockstep conservatives as they usually do. Kennedy, the centrist, would naturally be more reluctant to torpedo the law after two years of implementation and millions of enrollments than he was in 2012, when it was still on the launch pad.

And Roberts, having staked his judicial legacy on his decisive vote in the mandate case three years ago, wasn’t about to pull an Emily Litella now and undo the new health-care regime that he enabled. In fact, if either Roberts or Kennedy persuaded the other on this, I’d bet it was the former who persuaded the latter.

Another 5-4 decision would have only underscored the 5-4 frailty of ObamaCare after the mandate decision in 2012. A 6-3 decision signals that the law’s here to stay. “Why not provide some certainty by voting with us,” Roberts could have said to Kennedy, “if the subsidies are going to be upheld anyway?” Maybe that’s what cinched Kennedy. ObamaCare is here to stay. Might as well get onboard.

all of it with comments here:
Silver lining SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater Hot Air

Or maybe, just maybe they figured, well, we have two options. We can construe 4 words to undue the entire purpose of what everyone agrees was the purpose of the damn thing in the first place, OR we can construe the 4 words, that everyone agrees were a drafting error, in the way congress intended the law to be construed.

Was it really a drafting error? Do you have a proof of that? The words were in there and they were plain as day. It is obvious as to why they were put in there, it was an attempt to force states to set up exchanges. When Only 16 did it was ought oh time. Of course the writers of the bill wanted subsidizes available to everyone but that is NOT what they wrote in the bill because they were playing games, in my opinion.

The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor and kicked it back to Congress who would have immediately fast tracked a bill correcting the stupid wording. That is how it is suppose to work.

First of all there's rules 1 and 4 of statutory construction.

Statutes should be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute should not be inconsistent with the rest of the statute

The legislature is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.

Statutory Construction Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

Everyone agrees that the purpose of the state and federal exchanges were to regulate what insurance contracts covered and increase the number of them.

So, to rule the subsidies were not available on the federal exchange would be to read congress acted irrationally in writing the law so as to reach a result opposite to the law's intent. No one, not even the plaintiffs, could make that argument. So, it was a drafting error, and the four words cannot have been anything but that.

And, that it was a drafting error was ... a fact.

Obamacare s Survival Threatened by a Drafting Error Wonk Wire

I think Obamacare is a bad law. But the gnashing of teeth over this decision (or Roberts vote on the mandate) are hysteria. The RW wants the scotus to be activist and repeal a legally enacted, though misguided, law.

 

[Stephanie]

Like I said earlier: I'm in my sixties so I won't be having to pay for it.

So let me thank all you on THE LEFT/DEMS/LIBS who WILL be paying for me.

That will be the only thank you, you will ever get from all the other you will be SUPPORTING

I was against this from the get go. BUT oh well it's here to stay, oh thank you dear wonderful leader.