Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies

[rightwinger]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare

So basically if a law is big enough, and poorly written enough, it can't be overturned no matter how much the court realizes the wording was explicit to the States?

From the decision:

If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain, the Court must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”

So basically the Chief Justice stretched as much as he could to save the law, even though he knows they screwed up on the language.

Why do conservatives struggle so much with context?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare

So basically if a law is big enough, and poorly written enough, it can't be overturned no matter how much the court realizes the wording was explicit to the States?

It depends what the incentive is. "We know where your family is." Can be a huge incentive.

Now the drunk cat lover says the president threatened the families of SCOTUS.

You know what's scary is that there are surely people just as stupid and crazy as she is who would actually believe this shit.

 

[martybegan]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare

So basically if a law is big enough, and poorly written enough, it can't be overturned no matter how much the court realizes the wording was explicit to the States?

Four words

A petty attempt by Republicans to hurt Americans just so they can destroy Obamacare

How about the people who write a law pay attention when doing it?

 

[martybegan]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare

So basically if a law is big enough, and poorly written enough, it can't be overturned no matter how much the court realizes the wording was explicit to the States?

From the decision:

If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain, the Court must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”

So basically the Chief Justice stretched as much as he could to save the law, even though he knows they screwed up on the language.

Why do conservatives struggle so much with context?

Why do progressive struggle so much with being able to competently write laws?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare

So basically if a law is big enough, and poorly written enough, it can't be overturned no matter how much the court realizes the wording was explicit to the States?

From the decision:

If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain, the Court must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”

So basically the Chief Justice stretched as much as he could to save the law, even though he knows they screwed up on the language.

Why do conservatives struggle so much with context?

Same reason they struggle with facts.

Seriously, reading these posts proves they still don't know anything about ACA.

 

[candycorn]

He he he

 

[Freewill]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare

So basically if a law is big enough, and poorly written enough, it can't be overturned no matter how much the court realizes the wording was explicit to the States?

From the decision:

If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain, the Court must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”

So basically the Chief Justice stretched as much as he could to save the law, even though he knows they screwed up on the language.

Yep, they read the law, didn't like what it said so they said it said something else and that was what was meant. In other words they made law. The read the mind of those who wrote the law. Regardless of which side you are on one would think what is happening is bad for the country. But I think those who just love shoving crap down on people will think this is the best thing that ever happened, they win and we all lose.

It isn't going to happen but imagine if the SCOTUS rules 5-4 against gay marriage. What do you think those crowing today will say about the SCOTUS?

 

[mikegriffith1]

What a disgrace. Any junior high student can read the law and read where it says that to get the subsidy you must be in a state exchange. That's right in the law itself in fairly plain English. The Dems were confident they could pressure/cajole most states into creating exchanges, but only 16 states did so. So, Team Obama simply ignored their own law and started handing out subsidies in states with no exchanges. Who needs the rule of law anyway, right?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Meh, at this point what is one more factor to bankrupt the nation in the name of "for the good of the people"? Face it, we're toast.

So, the president spending less, lowering the deficit and making the US the strongest economy in the world is proof we're "toast"?

You people are just plain nuts.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[rightwinger]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare

So basically if a law is big enough, and poorly written enough, it can't be overturned no matter how much the court realizes the wording was explicit to the States?

Four words

A petty attempt by Republicans to hurt Americans just so they can destroy Obamacare

How about the people who write a law pay attention when doing it?

All laws have ambiguities...that is why our court system is so busy

 

[Edgetho]

Thank God.

The SCOTUS just saved the Republican Party and maybe even the Republic.

Had they ruled otherwise, we would have gotten KILLED by idiot liberturdians trying to get us to abandon the ACA.

Killed.

We would have lost to the WORST candidate in Human History.

Now, the Health Insurance problem is off the table.

And what's better...... Whatever bad that happens? It's on dimocraps. They own it. They took it away, they took it out of our hands.

Thank God.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Tea Party hopes for as National disaster collapse....

many recalcitrants are known to be butthurt...breaking story

 

[007]

So we have to wait until a conservative is elected president in 2016, big deal.

The bill will get repealed, one way or another, period.

 

[Freewill]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare

So basically if a law is big enough, and poorly written enough, it can't be overturned no matter how much the court realizes the wording was explicit to the States?

Four words

A petty attempt by Republicans to hurt Americans just so they can destroy Obamacare

Real four words.

A travesty of justice

That said I actually think it is the way the law was SUPPOSE to be written but was not. I also think it is the way it should have been written. It is NOT the job of the SCOTUS to make law. They should have kicked it back to congress and I guarantee that the law would have been quickly changed. But no the SCOTUS once again makes law.

What it indicates to me is those who originally wrote the law thought by writing it the way they did it would force states to open exchanges or screw their consituants. But when only 16 states said yes it put the left in a bind and the SCOTUS bailed them out once again.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Another piss-poor decision from the Roberts court. They find ambiguity where none exists, then correct the ambiguity.

Scalia's dissenting opinion is dead-on.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Maybe this will take the left loon's minds off a flag for awhile....until some dope white woman comes out as black or some mental midget former Olympian decides he's a fake woman.

 

[ogibillm]

Another freedom taken by the Obama administration.

which freedom is that?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Obamacare lives on after Supreme Court ruling - CNNPolitics.com

Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies Fox News

Supreme Court upholds major portion of Obamacare - CBS News

Supreme Court Upholds Federal Obamacare Subsidies - ABC News

Obama wins Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies 6-3 - Washington Times

Affordable Care Act survives Supreme Court challenge - The Washington Post

The court opinion:

Supreme Court opinion on the Affordable Care Act - The Washington Post


Supreme Court Rejects Obamacare Lawsuit Preserving Insurance For Millions

BREAKING Obamacare Subsidies Upheld By Supreme Court 6-3 - Katie Pavlich

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Obama Health Care Law - NBC News

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/u...p-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

[007]

Thank God.

The SCOTUS just saved the Republican Party and maybe even the Republic.

Had they ruled otherwise, we would have gotten KILLED by idiot liberturdians trying to get us to abandon the ACA.

Killed.

We would have lost to the WORST candidate in Human History.

Now, the Health Insurance problem is off the table.

And what's better...... Whatever bad that happens? It's on dimocraps. They own it. They took it away, they took it out of our hands.

Thank God.

That's the leftard meme... none of which is true.