| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,570 Views) | |
| wingedwheel | Jun 25 2015, 11:13 AM Post #2026 |
Not Pictured Above
|
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that they can change the law based on the intent of the law. Will they change the law again if someone petitions them to change it because healthcare is unaffordable? After all the name of the bill was the affordable care act. |
 |
 
|
| Baldo | Jun 25 2015, 11:17 AM Post #2027 |
|
President Obama: 'Someday, our grandkids will ask us if there was really a time when America discriminated against people who get sick' No we just have to pay for it. My goodness is this guy a left wing Marxist or what? Now it is more vacations, more Golf, more demagoguing, and more destruction of our country. |
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 25 2015, 01:51 PM Post #2028 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
They will certainly be bold now. They can change laws at will, it seems. They have a friendly SC, so they will be bold with getting things in front of these judges. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jun 25 2015, 02:30 PM Post #2029 |
|
Chief Justice Roberts is now the Clown Class of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday. “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.” Roberts continued, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”...snipped ....In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Using the acronym for the Supreme Court, Scalia said his colleagues have twice stepped in to save the law from what Scalia considered worthy challenges. “The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote. Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”...snipped http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-tax-subsidies-under-obamacare/ His opinions is crazy, why even have a SCOTUS if anything the President & Congress intends is valid. Words have meanings and apparently Roberts doesn't agree with that. As for the political consequences this decision does nothing about solving the real problem with Obama care. Financially it just isn't workable. Roberts is truly pathetic. Edited by Baldo, Jun 25 2015, 02:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 25 2015, 02:38 PM Post #2030 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
"The law as written says you must come to a complete stop at a stop sign. We are compelled to depart from this natural reading of the law, and allow people to roll through a stop sign. The law was clearly intended to help traffic flow, not impede it."
Edited by LTC8K6, Jun 25 2015, 02:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 25 2015, 02:40 PM Post #2031 |
|
and the email evidence from Gruber's mouth and typed words is that the exact words were indeed what the crafters intended. If Roberts was going to do down this avenue, then why didn't he at least chide Obama and Pelosi for ramming the AFCA through Congress without time for discussion, because the issue at the question would have surely have been discussed and debated. Roberts wants Obama to like him, and the media too. Edited by MikeZPU, Jun 25 2015, 02:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 25 2015, 02:41 PM Post #2032 |
|
|
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 25 2015, 02:58 PM Post #2033 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
So: Legislators really don't need to know anything about the bills or laws they pass. They can be ignorant of what the law means. They can write the bills/laws incorrectly. They can alter them at will after they have been passed They can even admit in public that the law does not mean what it says. None of this matters. It's the law, and it means whatever they decide it means, as many times as they want to decide. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 25 2015, 03:15 PM Post #2034 |
|
Lots of good quotes from Scalia in his dissenting opinion, in this foxnews.com article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/25/scalia-scathing-scotuscare-dissent/ Way to go Scalia -- couldn't agree with you more! |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 25 2015, 03:42 PM Post #2035 |
|
And think of these two things: Roberts let Obama bully him during this case, making statements that SCOTUS should have never taken up the case. Didn't seem to bother Roberts a bit! And Roberts damn well knew that McConnell and the Republicans were working on a fix, to avoid a backlash. So, Roberts did what he did to help Obama save face, plain and simple. And Roberts wants Obama to like him, plain and simple.     |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 25 2015, 04:20 PM Post #2036 |
|
I've yet to read the entire opinion, but from the excerpts quoted, I'm guessing I will not learn anything about law from reading it. I could not think of a way to soundly rule that the law defined "states" to mean "and/or the federal government." Chatham, I'm guessing the ruling is a political theory... you win! |
|
|
|
| chatham | Jun 25 2015, 04:27 PM Post #2037 |
|
Anytime a court decides to make law rather than interpret law, it is political. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 25 2015, 04:28 PM Post #2038 |
|
From Rush Limbaugh: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/25/obamacare_s_architect_stated_that_no_obamacare_exchange_meant_no_subsidies_and_it_meant_nothing_to_chief_roberts Obamacare's Architect Stated That No Obamacare Exchange Meant No Subsidies, and It Meant Nothing to Chief Roberts |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 25 2015, 04:30 PM Post #2039 |
|
The future for the law is full of financial problems. The insured can't afford the out-of-pocket, so it does little to help those who were to have benefitted. The program does not have funding for many functions, including operations of the exchanges the state do not have funds for. The premiums for exchange plans will keep going up faster than open markets premiums will, simply because people will drop out. Where the funding battles take the program will be election year topics the next 2 or 3 elections. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 25 2015, 04:32 PM Post #2040 |
|
I'm not finding how "LAW" has any thing to do with the ruling. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:54 AM Jul 13