Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
nasty little thing. you could care less about anyone but yourselfThe 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
So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?
lol, retards.
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
Maybe liberals will talk about something other than how racist America is for a few hours.
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?
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.
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
Obama was elected. Not "put in". Bush was "put in". It's why Obama has been successful and Bush wasn't.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?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
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
Wrong. He was only given the nomination because he stole delegates from Hillary Clinton. The empty suit remains a fraud.Obama was elected. Not "put in". Bush was "put in". It's why Obama has been successful and Bush wasn't.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?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
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
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.
I'm calling it SCOBamaCare.
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.
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.
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.
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.
