hopefully, they'll rule in favor of the ACA.
how will SCOTUS rule on ObamaCare?
- Thread starter JuliefromOhio
- Start date
Addy
Rebuild With Biden!
Good news!
Supreme Court upholds nationwide health care law subsidies
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.
The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, as opponents contended.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-upholds-nationwide-health-care-law-subsidies/ar-AAc77eU?ocid=UP72DHP
Supreme Court upholds nationwide health care law subsidies
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.
The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, as opponents contended.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-upholds-nationwide-health-care-law-subsidies/ar-AAc77eU?ocid=UP72DHP
the losers are too busy expending their energy defending the confederate flag. LOL
so Justice Roberts finally did what's expected of SCOTUS......to respect the work of the legislative branch and leave it alone unless it's unconstitutional.
Addy
Rebuild With Biden!
Sure enough!
Declining to concede, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans, who have voted more than 50 times to undo the law, will "continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families."
At the court, Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold it 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 declared in the majority opinion.
Limiting the subsidies only to individuals in states with their own exchanges could well push insurance markets in the other states "into a death spiral," Roberts wrote.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent he summarized from the bench, strongly disagreed. "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he said, using an acronym for the Supreme Court and suggesting his colleagues' ownership
by virtue of their twice stepping in to save the law from what he considered worthy challenges.
His comment drew a smile from Roberts, his seatmate and the object of Scala's ire.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-upholds-nationwide-health-care-law-subsidies/ar-AAc77eU?ocid=UP72DHP
fairsheet
Senator
Scalia should be impeached for lying. OK, I know that the dissenting side of any Supreme Court decision is given free reign to carp, snivel, and whine. But, to outright lie? Scalia suggests that it was OBVIOUS that Congress intended to distinguish between states that set up their own exchanges and those that didn't. Well...at least we know how stupid he thinks his saps are!Sure enough!
Declining to concede, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans, who have voted more than 50 times to undo the law, will "continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families."
At the court, Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold it 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 declared in the majority opinion.
Limiting the subsidies only to individuals in states with their own exchanges could well push insurance markets in the other states "into a death spiral," Roberts wrote.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent he summarized from the bench, strongly disagreed. "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he said, using an acronym for the Supreme Court and suggesting his colleagues' ownership
by virtue of their twice stepping in to save the law from what he considered worthy challenges.
His comment drew a smile from Roberts, his seatmate and the object of Scala's ire.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-upholds-nationwide-health-care-law-subsidies/ar-AAc77eU?ocid=UP72DHP
fairsheet
Senator
This one shoulda been 9-0.
Addy
Rebuild With Biden!
The Supreme Court did the losers a big favor, the hypocrites..
NBC’s Luke Russert tweeted out earlier today that “one prominent #GOP member says to me re SCOTUS and subsidies, ‘phew, that fight could have killed us.'”
fairsheet
Senator
Obamacare-hate is passé. Confederate flag worship is the new "normal" for their pathetic asses.The Supreme Court did the losers a big favor, the hypocrites..
NBC’s Luke Russert tweeted out earlier today that “one prominent #GOP member says to me re SCOTUS and subsidies, ‘phew, that fight could have killed us.'”
there's nothing republicans won't lie about.
Addy
Rebuild With Biden!
Too bad, the repubs are always on the wrong side of history.
Addy
Rebuild With Biden!
CONSERVATIVES: ALWAYS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY:
1) Conservatives opposed the American Revolution
Conservatives vehemently warned us that it was unnatural to rebel against our Sovereign Lord, King George III, and that doing so would plunge the colonies into disorder. They assured us, as the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke echoed, that social stability would only come from the small group of wealthy aristocrats ruling over the poor majority. Conservatives reiterated that it was the duty of the poor to obey their “betters.” Their rewards, after all, will come in Heaven.
2) Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves
I know, I know. Here’s where the sophomoric CONS, lacking the ability for complex thought, will whine that Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. But as Southern historian Al Benson, Jr. wrote in his article, “The Republican Party, There are NO conservative roots there,”
“It is interesting to note that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives, while the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals.”
The Republican Party of the 1860’s, as evidenced by their platform, was a progressive party that rose in opposition to the entrenched power structure. It called for protective tariffs, Besides emancipating the slaves, Lincoln was in favor of progressive taxation. The Revenue Act of 1862 levied a 3% tax on people making between $600 and $10,000 a year, and a 5% for those making over $10,000.
As Andrew Belonsky wrote for Death and Taxes,
“Lincoln believed that rich Americans should pay more than their less wealthy friends and neighbors.”
But, because they are CONS and want to rig the system in their favor, they only considered slaves “people” for purposes of counting them in order to increase the slave-state representation in Congress.
Conservatives warned that freeing the slaves, believe it or not, was an affront to liberty – as well as an evil government plot to force hardworking business owners to release their property. After all, as the Bible tells us, and as Rush Limbaugh later reminded us, “some people are just born to be slaves.”
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://republicandirtytricks.com/conservatives-always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/&layout=standard&show_faces=false&width=450&action=like&colorscheme=light
1) Conservatives opposed the American Revolution
Conservatives vehemently warned us that it was unnatural to rebel against our Sovereign Lord, King George III, and that doing so would plunge the colonies into disorder. They assured us, as the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke echoed, that social stability would only come from the small group of wealthy aristocrats ruling over the poor majority. Conservatives reiterated that it was the duty of the poor to obey their “betters.” Their rewards, after all, will come in Heaven.
2) Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves
I know, I know. Here’s where the sophomoric CONS, lacking the ability for complex thought, will whine that Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. But as Southern historian Al Benson, Jr. wrote in his article, “The Republican Party, There are NO conservative roots there,”
“It is interesting to note that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives, while the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals.”
The Republican Party of the 1860’s, as evidenced by their platform, was a progressive party that rose in opposition to the entrenched power structure. It called for protective tariffs, Besides emancipating the slaves, Lincoln was in favor of progressive taxation. The Revenue Act of 1862 levied a 3% tax on people making between $600 and $10,000 a year, and a 5% for those making over $10,000.
As Andrew Belonsky wrote for Death and Taxes,
“Lincoln believed that rich Americans should pay more than their less wealthy friends and neighbors.”
But, because they are CONS and want to rig the system in their favor, they only considered slaves “people” for purposes of counting them in order to increase the slave-state representation in Congress.
Conservatives warned that freeing the slaves, believe it or not, was an affront to liberty – as well as an evil government plot to force hardworking business owners to release their property. After all, as the Bible tells us, and as Rush Limbaugh later reminded us, “some people are just born to be slaves.”
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://republicandirtytricks.com/conservatives-always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/&layout=standard&show_faces=false&width=450&action=like&colorscheme=light
Scalia told the truth. Roberts should be recalled for legislating from the bench.
This pretty much guarantees that the court will decide in favor of the pervert marriage issue.
Jets
Conservative Pragmatist
To throw in my two cents here:
Both Roberts and Scalia have valid points. Roberts allowed the law to stand deferring to Congress to uphold the law with the intent of the law to be constitutional. Scalia would have invalidated the law based upon text and forced Congress to fix it themselves stating its not the SCs job to do so.
I see no fault with either line of reasoning, IMHO.
Both Roberts and Scalia have valid points. Roberts allowed the law to stand deferring to Congress to uphold the law with the intent of the law to be constitutional. Scalia would have invalidated the law based upon text and forced Congress to fix it themselves stating its not the SCs job to do so.
I see no fault with either line of reasoning, IMHO.
I'd like to see the bastard removed, however it is done.
Then the court should have refused to rule on the law and should have sent it back to Congress to fix rather than wipe Obama's ass for him.
