Chief Justice Brutus Roberts

[PoliticalChic]

Sour Grapes from a loser is all the soap 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.

1. Does the ObamaCare bill specify that subsidies can only be given to those who purchase coverage via exchanges 'established by the state'?

2. Does it include that exact language..."established by the state'?

3. Did ObamaCare architect Gruber testify that it was that it was the carefully considered aim of the bills creators to pressure states to set up state exchanges by including the language specifying that subsidies can only be given to those who purchase coverage via exchanges 'established by the state'?

4. Did the Supreme Court ignore the obvious meaning of 'established by the state'?


5. When do you plan to change your avi to 'FooledByObama'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sour Grapes from a loser is all the soap 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 his court from being nutty like all the RWnutjobs that run amok in this country."


"When we started this health care debate a year ago, 85 percent of the American people had health insurance, and 95 percent of the 85 percent were happy with it."
—George Willon Sunday, February 21st, 2010 in a roundtable segment on ABC's This Week"Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it PolitiFact


Here's what we found, poll by poll, in reverse chronological order:

•Quinnipiac University, Sept. 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 54 percent very satisfied, 34 percent somewhat.Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

•Quinnipiac University, June 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 49 percent very satisfied, 36 somewhat satisfied.Total: 85 percent satisfaction.

•ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

•Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2009. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 21 percent extremely satisfied, 37 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied.Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

•ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied.Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

•Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." 31 percent extremely satisfied, 41 percent very satisfied, 23 somewhat satisfied.Total: 95 percent satisfaction.

•Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Overall satisfaction with my health (insurance) care plan." 23 percent extremely satisfied, 38 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied.Total: 91 percent satisfaction.

•Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2008. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 17 percent extremely satisfied, 36 percent very satisfied, 33 percent somewhat satisfied.Total: 86 percent satisfaction.

If you average these eight scores, the total rate of satisfaction is 87 percent. In all but one poll, the satisfaction level was below Will's stated level of 95 percent.

One poll, taken five months before Obama was inaugurated, did come up with 95 percent satisfaction. But alone among these eight polls, that survey asked participants about the "quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." While we decided that the wording was close enough to merit inclusion on our list, the modest difference in satisfaction levels may stem from the way the question was phrased. Many people feel more warmly toward their doctors than they do toward their insurers.

So, while one poll with unique wording pegged satisfaction at 95 percent, the average of all relevant polls over a two-year period was eight points lower than what Will cited. However, Will is correct that the levels of satisfaction with one's own health insurance are consistently high. Indeed, they're extraordinarily high, when one considers how rarely surveys find such high levels of agreement among Americans. Since Will portrayed the larger point accurately, even while modestly overstating the number, we rate his comment Mostly True.

Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it PolitiFact




So, Brutus Robers was wrong judicially, and wrong in terms of the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.

Therefore...you're an idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Scalia speaks:

5. “The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the ‘most natural sense’ of the phrase ‘Exchange established by the State’ is an Exchange established by a State. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)

Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that ‘it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)’”




6. “Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that ‘established by the State’ means ‘established by the State or the Federal Government,’ the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.’

This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’” 9 Quotes From Scalia s Scathing Dissent in King V. Burwell



Time to disband the Supreme Court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Justice Scalia, as sickened by the ObamaCare decision as I was, wrote the following:


7. “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”



8. “More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. ‘If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that … Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”
[Bless Scalia....long life!]



9. “Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges.” 9 Quotes From Scalia s Scathing Dissent in King V. Burwell

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. From the start, Progressives have been opposed to the American view of governance. Specifically, to checks and balances, and preventing all power from being accumulated in the hands of one person or one branch of government.

These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.

a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’

b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.

c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.

d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.

e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.

f. 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).




Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.

With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.



Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???


Why?

Does it make you wish you'd stayed in Korea?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. From the start, Progressives have been opposed to the American view of governance. Specifically, to checks and balances, and preventing all power from being accumulated in the hands of one person or one branch of government.

These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.

a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’

b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.

c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.

d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.

e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.

f. 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).




Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.

With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.



Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???


Why?

Does it make you wish you'd stayed in Korea?

Have you noticed that you are hardly ever able to address the topics of the threads....and wind up looking like the loser that you have proven to be?

Others have noticed it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. From the start, Progressives have been opposed to the American view of governance. Specifically, to checks and balances, and preventing all power from being accumulated in the hands of one person or one branch of government.

These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.

a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’

b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.

c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.

d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.

e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.

f. 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).




Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.

With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.



Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???


Why?

Does it make you wish you'd stayed in Korea?

Have you noticed that you are hardly ever able to address the topics of the threads....and wind up looking like the loser that you have proven to be?

Others have noticed it.

I addressed the topic the FIRST time you posted this thread, dumbass.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Before our eyes we have seen a lawless President, and, now, an equally lawless Supreme Court.

So ends the noble experiment in self-governance.....ended by Progressive ascendancy.


Fading into distant memory is the following explanation of the source of all power in the nation, and the Founder's view of what the court should use as it's guidance:


"1. Under this brief writer’s version of the living Constitution, nonelected members of the federal judiciary may address themselves to a social problem simply because other

branches of government have failed or refused to do so. These same judges, responsible to no constituency whatever, are nonetheless acclaimed as “the voice and conscience of contemporary society.



2. [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.


a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country."

THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf





3. Here is a quote from Justice Frankfurter who wrote the dissenting opinion on West Virginia BOE v Barnette:

“As a member of this Court I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution.... It can never be emphasized too much that one’s own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one’s duty on the bench.”



That message should be tattoo'd on Brutus Roberts, as per Kafka's 'The Penal Colony.'

....that may be a bit too harsh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. From the start, Progressives have been opposed to the American view of governance. Specifically, to checks and balances, and preventing all power from being accumulated in the hands of one person or one branch of government.

These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.

a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’

b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.

c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.

d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.

e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.

f. 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).




Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.

With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.



Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???


Why?

Does it make you wish you'd stayed in Korea?

Have you noticed that you are hardly ever able to address the topics of the threads....and wind up looking like the loser that you have proven to be?

Others have noticed it.

I addressed the topic the FIRST time you posted this thread, dumbass.

This is the first time I've posted this thread.

So...your claim is that you provided some eminently forgettable post in another thread?

And now you've re-appeared to provide an even more forgettable post, one totally out of context, as out of place as applause in a church




Don't your hands hurt from holding on by a thread for so long?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

PC 11723064

1. Does the ObamaCare bill specify that subsidies can only be given to those who purchase coverage via exchanges 'established by the state'?

Yes it does. And ' the state' is obviously read as 'the government' and in the context of the entire ACA it's intent was that 'the state' was the Federal Government. If it meant individual state governments it should shave read "established by the States" - yepp, each state in the Union is a proper noun and should have been capitalized and plural. The Federal Government is singular and can be referred to as the state. RW nut hate radio talker refers to pro-central government liberals as 'statists' all the time. You are the idiot PC- a sore loser idiot.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

"Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all." Scalia 2012

. 4. Did the Supreme Court ignore the obvious meaning of 'established by the state'?

No. Scalia ignored what he wrote in 2012:

Yet Again A Scalia Dissent Is Used Against Him

.
Justice Antonin Scalia strongly objected to Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, so it was amusing to see Chief Justice John Roberts use Scalia's own dissent in the last major Obamacare case against him.

It was buried in a footnote and amounted to a small dart lobbed Scalia's way, especially when compared to Scalia's blistering dissent that ripped Roberts' legal reasoning.

To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favor of Obamacare, in which Scalia said, "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."

You are a loser PC. Time to run like EconChick did.

 

[Agit8r]

1. From the start, Progressives have been opposed to the American view of governance. Specifically, to checks and balances, and preventing all power from being accumulated in the hands of one person or one branch of government.

These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.

a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’

b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.

c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.

d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.

e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.

f. 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).




Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.

With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.



Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???


Why?

If you don't like it, start a movement to impeach Roberts. Write your senator, and all that jazz

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC 11723064

1. Does the ObamaCare bill specify that subsidies can only be given to those who purchase coverage via exchanges 'established by the state'?

Yes it does. And ' the state' is obviously read as 'the government' and in the context of the entire ACA it's intent was that 'the state' was the Federal Government. If it meant individual state governments it should shave read "established by the States" - yepp, each state in the Union is a proper noun and should have been capitalized and plural. The Federal Government is singular and can be referred to as the state. RW nut hate radio talker refers to pro-central government liberals as 'statists' all the time. You are the idiot PC- a sore loser idiot.

"And ' the state' is obviously read as 'the government'..."

False.

"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?

Not that there couldn't be an honest Liberal.....
There are, I am sure, a number of honest Liberals....why, another one could come along any day now....any day.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. From the start, Progressives have been opposed to the American view of governance. Specifically, to checks and balances, and preventing all power from being accumulated in the hands of one person or one branch of government.

These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.

a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’

b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.

c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.

d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.

e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.

f. 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).




Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.

With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.



Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???


Why?

If you don't like it, start a movement to impeach Roberts. Write your senator, and all that jazz

There are so many fools like you that samizdat is my only recourse.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all." Scalia 2012

. 4. Did the Supreme Court ignore the obvious meaning of 'established by the state'?

No. Scalia ignored what he wrote in 2012:

Yet Again A Scalia Dissent Is Used Against Him

.
Justice Antonin Scalia strongly objected to Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, so it was amusing to see Chief Justice John Roberts use Scalia's own dissent in the last major Obamacare case against him.

It was buried in a footnote and amounted to a small dart lobbed Scalia's way, especially when compared to Scalia's blistering dissent that ripped Roberts' legal reasoning.

To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favor of Obamacare, in which Scalia said, "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."

You are a loser PC. Time to run like EconChick did.

Stick around, and watch me beat you like a rented mule.

 

[regent]

Won't be long until we discover the Supreme Court Judges are all communists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Won't be long until we discover the Supreme Court Judges are all communists.

Another stupid non-post from one who would sorely like to respond in a cogent manner....

....but, like the Eunuch in the Harem....

....as much as he would like to, he can't.

 

[Cassandro]

Stick around for 2017, PC. The next President/Senate may cause fundamental changes in the Court. Time to fight fire with fire.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stick around for 2017, PC. The next President/Senate may cause fundamental changes in the Court. Time to fight fire with fire.

If only I had the faith that you have, woodie.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

"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?