LL....so far 4 judge's have agreed with me and 2 with you.
Originally Posted by WTF
You have it ass-backwards.
They didn't agree with you, duffus.
I am sure they don't have a clue as to what you think. I'm not sure you do.
Hopefully, you will be able to convince the Bimbos surrounding the Judges agree with you, but you don't convince me. And, for the record, two didn't agree with me. I didn't tell them what i thought either.
I can read though, and until I got "timed out" I was adding Roberts' evaluation of the authority of Government as it relates to the ACA. His opinion was a majority opinion, and apparently there were at least a couple of dissenters that agreed with his principles of statutory interpretation, but came out differently on the meaning of a word in the ACA.
Unfortunately for you, and the 4 judges with whom you agree, its not a matter of the meaning of a word in the statute, it is a matter of the lack of several words in the statute. "Slightly" different.
Roberts:
"Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use."
Not the President or the Administration. Congress hasn't done that.
And he clarifies while addressing a part of the dissent's concerns:
"This is not to say, as the joint dissent suggests, that we are “rewriting the Medicaid Expansion.” Post, at 48. Instead, we determine, first, that §1396c is unconstitutional when applied to withdraw existing Medicaid fundsfrom States that decline to comply with the expansion. We then follow Congress’s explicit textual instruction to leave unaffected “the remainder of the chapter, and theapplication of [the challenged] provision to other persons or circumstances.” §1303. When we invalidate an application of a statute because that application is unconstitutional, we are not “rewriting” the statute; we are merely enforcing the Constitution."
Other votes expressed a concern that the Court was "rewriting" the statute. The Court would have to "rewrite" the statute to uphold the subsidies for Federal applicants, and there is justification stated directly in the law for the disparate treatment between the State and Federal applicants. Roberts even anticipated in his opinion that some States would not participate in the expansion. That "deficiency" was for Congress to address, not the Courts.
