SCOTUS EMBARASSES ITSELF..........THE SCALIA OPINION

Goodbye America? Really? Are you slumped in some corner weeping? Get a grip.

Of course the Robert's decision should be mocked and derided (and feared); just as Lewis Carroll was mocking with Humpty Dumpty............the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Meaning.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

The masters now are those who want words (and laws) to mean whatever they want them to mean, not what is written.

Goodbye law, goodbye America. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The wingnuts have something to wring their hands about besides Obie.

Apparently, you're wrong. Justice Roberts says so. Originally Posted by WombRaider

So, you can't read either.

The opinion acknowledges that the statutory language was wrong and then ignores the mistake and says "We know what they meant".

Even if true, it is not the job of SCOTUS to "fix" unambiguous language.

The correct ruling would have been to say that "state" meant the state government - just like the statute says - and then let Congress pass an amendment to fix it.

And THAT is what the real fear was. 5 justices were afraid that Congress would leave it as it was and the program would become even more costly.

So, they played politics and ignored the plain language. Which is exactly what a court is NOT supposed to do.

On a personal note, I think we need to have some kind of single system that provides bare bones coverage for everyone and prohibits companies from providing health insurance. People who want premium coverage should pay out of their own pocket.

That said, when courts act the way they did here, they inevitably cause greater trouble down the road.

But, opponents should look on the bright side. If they win back Congress, they can pass their own amendment that reverses this decision and explicitly states that ONLY the state governments can establish an exchange and the federal government may not.

Then, this decision is moot.

You're dreaming, this decision isn't going to be reversed by legislation or become moot. Healthcare for all isn't something you walk back once it takes hold. (A fact recognized by the SCOTUS majority) What we need to do is move towards a single-payer system (like every other civilized nation in the world) and this was the 2nd step towards that eventuality.

So, you can't read either.

The opinion acknowledges that the statutory language was wrong and then ignores the mistake and says "We know what they meant".

Even if true, it is not the job of SCOTUS to "fix" unambiguous language.

The correct ruling would have been to say that "state" meant the state government - just like the statute says - and then let Congress pass an amendment to fix it.

And THAT is what the real fear was. 5 justices were afraid that Congress would leave it as it was and the program would become even more costly.

So, they played politics and ignored the plain language. Which is exactly what a court is NOT supposed to do.

On a personal note, I think we need to have some kind of single system that provides bare bones coverage for everyone and prohibits companies from providing health insurance. People who want premium coverage should pay out of their own pocket.

That said, when courts act the way they did here, they inevitably cause greater trouble down the road.

But, opponents should look on the bright side. If they win back Congress, they can pass their own amendment that reverses this decision and explicitly states that ONLY the state governments can establish an exchange and the federal government may not.

Then, this decision is moot. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You're dreaming, this decision isn't going to be reversed by legislation or become moot. Healthcare for all isn't something you walk back once it takes hold. (A fact recognized by the SCOTUS majority) What we need to do is move towards a single-payer system (like every other civilized nation in the world) and this was the 2nd step towards that eventuality. Originally Posted by timpage

I'm not dreaming because I didn't say it would be or should be reversed.

All I said was that if the people who are pissed off about this decision want to fix it, then amend the statute to state that the exchanges established by the state refers ONLY to ones established by the several states and further that the federal government cannot establish an exchange in lieu of a state that refuse to do so.

That would render this decision moot.

Such an amendment would also NOT repeal Obamacare. It would still function a planned in the other states.

Now, whether they have the votes to do that is another thing.

This is not healthcare for all. Sorry, Timmy. It benefits Big Insurance more than the insured.

In 5 years, the AHA won't look anything like it does today...................high risk insured will be pushed into high risk pools, affordable catastrophic plans will be made available, and deductibles will have to be lowered.

What Obama (and the Democrats) promised isn't what the public thought we were getting; dissatisfaction with Obamacare will continue to grow, forcing structural changes to the legislation.

Laughable that the left says next step is national single payer system; Obamacare is just the opposite, it has empowered insurance companies even more and strengthened the alliance between big government and big business.....Insurance companies aren't going away and single payer isn't coming to America.

Has the right written anything on the blank sheets of paper they held up during Obie's speech?

Increasing premiums; skyrocketing deductibles, and high co-pays are expected to continue; public dissatisfaction remains high and will force structural changes to Obamacare...

FACT JACK.

SCOTUS deserves derision and mockery; especially those jurists who represent a voting bloc for the left. They aren't there to judge, they aren't serious jurist who weigh complex legal and constitutional issues, they are on SCOTUS to implement progressive politics.

There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by the three cases (Gay Marriage, Obamacare, Fair Housing Housing), there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.

How can that be? Jurisprudence is complex. Supple minds, however likeminded, will often diverge, sometimes dramatically, on principles of constitutional adjudication, canons of statutory construction, murky separation-of-powers boundaries, the etymology of language, and much else. But not the Court’s lefties, not on the major cases. And it is not so much that they move in lockstep. It is that no one expects them to do anything but move in lockstep.

It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backwards.

About time we abandon SCOTUS.........

We should thus drop the pretense that the Court is a tribunal worthy of the protections our system designed for a non-political entity — life-tenure, insulation from elections, and the veil of secrecy that shrouds judicial deliberations. If the justices are going to do politics, they should be in electoral politics.

If John Roberts is going to write laws on the days when he isn’t posing as powerless to write laws, if Anthony Kennedy truly believes the country craves his eccentric notion of liberty (one that condemns government restraints on marriage 24 hours after it tightens government’s noose around one-sixth of the U.S. economy), then their seats should not be in an insulated third branch of government. They should be in an accountable third chamber of Congress.

In 5 years, the AHA won't look anything like it does today...................high risk insured will be pushed into high risk pools, affordable catastrophic plans will be made available, and deductibles will have to be lowered.

What Obama (and the Democrats) promised isn't what the public thought we were getting; dissatisfaction with Obamacare will continue to grow, forcing structural changes to the legislation. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You got nothing. Whining.

Laughable that the left says next step is national single payer system; Obamacare is just the opposite, it has empowered insurance companies even more and strengthened the alliance between big government and big business.....Insurance companies aren't going away and single payer isn't coming to America. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

More crystal ball gazing from you. What's laughable are your bizarre attempts to salvage something from the debris of your opposition to the ACA. I guess you can cry and whine and make predictions. Of course, you have been wrong about everything you predicted in relation to the ACA so far...including that it would be repealed.

So, we'll file your predictions with the rest of your bullshit.....

Where were all the "five unelected judges making law" crybabies when the Citizens United opinion declared that corporations were people. I missed it.....

You're a sore loser and a bitch.....in addition to being a fucking welcher. It all fits together.

SCOTUS deserves derision and mockery; especially those jurists who represent a voting bloc for the left. They aren't there to judge, they aren't serious jurist who weigh complex legal and constitutional issues, they are on SCOTUS to implement progressive politics.

There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by the three cases (Gay Marriage, Obamacare, Fair Housing Housing), there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.

How can that be? Jurisprudence is complex. Supple minds, however likeminded, will often diverge, sometimes dramatically, on principles of constitutional adjudication, canons of statutory construction, murky separation-of-powers boundaries, the etymology of language, and much else. But not the Court’s lefties, not on the major cases. And it is not so much that they move in lockstep. It is that no one expects them to do anything but move in lockstep.

It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backwards.

About time we abandon SCOTUS.........

We should thus drop the pretense that the Court is a tribunal worthy of the protections our system designed for a non-political entity — life-tenure, insulation from elections, and the veil of secrecy that shrouds judicial deliberations. If the justices are going to do politics, they should be in electoral politics.

If John Roberts is going to write laws on the days when he isn’t posing as powerless to write laws, if Anthony Kennedy truly believes the country craves his eccentric notion of liberty (one that condemns government restraints on marriage 24 hours after it tightens government’s noose around one-sixth of the U.S. economy), then their seats should not be in an insulated third branch of government. They should be in an accountable third chamber of Congress.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You prove my point; the reliable left always votes as a bloc; they don't judge, they vote to implement progressive agenda. Sometimes they lose (like Citizens United). But they always hang together. Sometimes they are joined by the swing jurists (Kennedy, Roberts), but how they will vote is NEVER in doubt.

CU was a constitutional issue; Obamacare was not. It was a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation. What made it ostensibly straightforward was the law: a statute that says, “an Exchange established by the State,” cannot possibly mean “an Exchange not established by the State.” If we were a nation of laws, such a case would never make it to the highest court in the land.

Why would you say that? The SCOTUS has issued an opinion and your response is that the country needs to respond with "mockery and derision"? I don't get that. You post up here wearing your patriot tags but when the Constitution acts like it should, you post up this crap? The opposition ought to respectfully disagree.

And Scalia's dissent is brilliant so far as it goes. I'll never say anything else. He just doesn't get it. Originally Posted by timpage

Where were all the "five unelected judges making law" crybabies when the Citizens United opinion declared that corporations were people. I missed it.....

You're a sore loser and a bitch.....in addition to being a fucking welcher. It all fits together. Originally Posted by timpage