Awesome! Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent, “We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUSc

[BluesLegend]

So the law is poorly written and unclear, but congress intent is clear??? How the hell does that jive?

 

[2aguy]

So the law is poorly written and unclear, but congress intent is clear??? How the hell does that jive?

It doesn't.....roberts is either an asshole leftist or they have something on him.....I am going with he is an asshole leftist...

No more justices should be appointed by a Bush......no Jeb in 2016....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Democrats created a colossal glittering magnificent mess. Now the democrats want republicans to come in and clean it up. Once again democrats prove that they're the party of low information immature spoiled dependent children.

Farley got his ass kicked today by the Court twice, so he is crying. Who cares?

 

[JakeStarkey]

2aguy is describing himself. Bub, the good Americans are in your way.

 

[Contumacious]

So the law is poorly written and unclear, but congress intent is clear??? How the hell does that jive?

AGAIN, "CONGRESS" DID NOT CONSIDER THE "LAW" ONLY THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED SENATE DID ........IN FUCKING SECRET , AT 2 AM ON A SNOWY CHRISTMAS EVE.


STUPID AMERICANS DON"T PAY ATTENTION DURING REGULAR HOURS, LET ALONE AT 2 AM ON A CHRISTMAS EVE. THAT HARRY REID IS A MOTHERFUCKER, GLAD HIS FACE WAS SMASHED IN.


.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conty is going to blow a gasket.

Chill, dude. Have a beer.

 

[Flash Farley]

Democrats created a colossal glittering magnificent mess. Now the democrats want republicans to come in and clean it up. Once again democrats prove that they're the party of low information immature spoiled dependent children.

Farley got his ass kicked today by the Court twice, so he is crying. Who cares?

My, such violence and hate in your speech. Are you sure you want to make this personal, you nasty lying leftist cocksucker.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So the law is poorly written and unclear, but congress intent is clear??? How the hell does that jive?

AGAIN, "CONGRESS" DID NOT CONSIDER THE "LAW" ONLY THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED SENATE DID ........IN FUCKING SECRET , AT 2 AM ON A SNOWY CHRISTMAS EVE.


STUPID AMERICANS DON"T PAY ATTENTION DURING REGULAR HOURS, LET ALONE AT 2 AM ON A CHRISTMAS EVE. THAT HARRY REID IS A MOTHERFUCKER, GLAD HIS FACE WAS SMASHED IN.

Seems you have a problem, several in fact, deal with them: Affordable Health Care for America Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[2aguy]

Conty is going to blow a gasket.

Chill, dude. Have a beer.

jake...one day in the future you will be sitting in a government waiting room with a sick loved one.....perhaps one of your grandchildren....and the nameless bureaucrat is going to coldly explain to you that under government healthcare your loved one does not qualify for treatment that will change or save their life......please close your eyes.....I will be there in your head shrugging and saying..."Fuck you....we told you...."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Conty is going to blow a gasket.

Chill, dude. Have a beer.

jake...one day in the future you will be sitting in a government waiting room with a sick loved one.....perhaps one of your grandchildren....and the nameless bureaucrat is going to coldly explain to you that under government healthcare your loved one does not qualify for treatment that will change or save their life......please close your eyes.....I will be there in your head shrugging and saying..."Fuck you....we told you...."

Money doesn't grow on trees, sorry Grandpa but we have little ones who need their shots...

 

[mudwhistle]

I fail to see how this is "awesome" in any way. At the end of the day this is just another crushing defeat for the American people.

Scallia's words do absolutely nothing to return lost freedoms to Americans.

If conservative politicians aren't smart enough to put forth a UNIFIED plan for the upcoming election but rather resort to tearing each other apart to further themselves then we deserve to be ruled over by the democrats

I was just reading this: kind of crazy but:
snip:
Silver lining: SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater
posted at 11:21 am on June 25, 2015 by Allahpundit



Before we get to the substance, can we pause for a moment to acknowledge that the big A totally called this three days ago on Twitter?



That was an easy call if you were willing to assume the most cynical motives for each justice. The four liberals would vote like good lockstep liberals, as they always do. The three conservatives would vote like lockstep conservatives as they usually do. Kennedy, the centrist, would naturally be more reluctant to torpedo the law after two years of implementation and millions of enrollments than he was in 2012, when it was still on the launch pad.

And Roberts, having staked his judicial legacy on his decisive vote in the mandate case three years ago, wasn’t about to pull an Emily Litella now and undo the new health-care regime that he enabled. In fact, if either Roberts or Kennedy persuaded the other on this, I’d bet it was the former who persuaded the latter.

Another 5-4 decision would have only underscored the 5-4 frailty of ObamaCare after the mandate decision in 2012. A 6-3 decision signals that the law’s here to stay. “Why not provide some certainty by voting with us,” Roberts could have said to Kennedy, “if the subsidies are going to be upheld anyway?” Maybe that’s what cinched Kennedy. ObamaCare is here to stay. Might as well get onboard.

all of it with comments here:
Silver lining SCOTUS just spared us from another excruciating episode of GOP failure theater Hot Air

Or maybe, just maybe they figured, well, we have two options. We can construe 4 words to undue the entire purpose of what everyone agrees was the purpose of the damn thing in the first place, OR we can construe the 4 words, that everyone agrees were a drafting error, in the way congress intended the law to be construed.

Was it really a drafting error? Do you have a proof of that? The words were in there and they were plain as day. It is obvious as to why they were put in there, it was an attempt to force states to set up exchanges. When Only 16 did it was ought oh time. Of course the writers of the bill wanted subsidizes available to everyone but that is NOT what they wrote in the bill because they were playing games, in my opinion.

The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor and kicked it back to Congress who would have immediately fast tracked a bill correcting the stupid wording. That is how it is suppose to work.

First of all there's rules 1 and 4 of statutory construction.

Statutes should be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute should not be inconsistent with the rest of the statute

The legislature is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.

Statutory Construction Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

Everyone agrees that the purpose of the state and federal exchanges were to regulate what insurance contracts covered and increase the number of them.

So, to rule the subsidies were not available on the federal exchange would be to read congress acted irrationally in writing the law so as to reach a result opposite to the law's intent. No one, not even the plaintiffs, could make that argument. So, it was a drafting error, and the four words cannot have been anything but that.

And, that it was a drafting error was ... a fact.

Obamacare s Survival Threatened by a Drafting Error Wonk Wire

I think Obamacare is a bad law. But the gnashing of teeth over this decision (or Roberts vote on the mandate) are hysteria. The RW wants the scotus to be activist and repeal a legally enacted, though misguided, law.

Yup....like the line-item veto.

 

[BluesLegend]

So the law is poorly written and unclear, but congress intent is clear??? How the hell does that jive?

AGAIN, "CONGRESS" DID NOT CONSIDER THE "LAW" ONLY THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED SENATE DID ........IN FUCKING SECRET , AT 2 AM ON A SNOWY CHRISTMAS EVE.


STUPID AMERICANS DON"T PAY ATTENTION DURING REGULAR HOURS, LET ALONE AT 2 AM ON A CHRISTMAS EVE. THAT HARRY REID IS A MOTHERFUCKER, GLAD HIS FACE WAS SMASHED IN.


.


.

You missed the point entirely. How can Roberts say the law is poorly written and unclear yet at the same time say he understands what congress intent was.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yup.....we had to pass the damned thing to find out what was in it.
Very few of the folks that voted for it even read it.....and the damned law was nothing but a pack of lies anyway....so we're stuck with it for now.
But like everything Obama has done....it's eventually going to turn to shit.
Once he's not in a position to bribe anyone into seeing things his way it will fall apart because of the expense of it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Ted Cruz, Then and Now
June 25, 2015By Taegan Goddard

“One of the best constitutional minds in the country.”

— Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), quoted in 2005 by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, on Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese.”

— Cruz, in a statement today on the Obamacare decision written by Roberts.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ted Cruz, Then and Now
June 25, 2015By Taegan Goddard

“One of the best constitutional minds in the country.”

— Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), quoted in 2005 by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, on Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese.”

— Cruz, in a statement today on the Obamacare decision written by Roberts.

Poor Canada Ted, he just can't decide who he likes.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

day on the Obamacare decision written by Roberts.

Poor Canada Ted, he just can't decide who he likes.[/QUOTE]

 

[Freewill]

Ted Cruz, Then and Now
June 25, 2015By Taegan Goddard

“One of the best constitutional minds in the country.”

— Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), quoted in 2005 by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, on Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese.”

— Cruz, in a statement today on the Obamacare decision written by Roberts.

10 years ago we didn't know how big a dick Roberts really is. At least those on the right learn.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

10 years ago we didn't know how big a dick Roberts really is. At least those on the right learn.

Then learn to respect your superiors
Like him:

 

[bendog]

Ted Cruz, Then and Now
June 25, 2015By Taegan Goddard

“One of the best constitutional minds in the country.”

— Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), quoted in 2005 by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, on Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese.”

— Cruz, in a statement today on the Obamacare decision written by Roberts.

10 years ago we didn't know how big a dick Roberts really is. At least those on the right learn.

Well, 4 years ago I thought Roberts' aim was to take constitutional law back to pre-Warren. I'm still not sure. But the Obamacare suits were simply about congressional taxing power and simple statutory construction. I understand you don't like Obamacare, and neither do I, but you're wanting Roberts to be an activist Justice, and he's simply not going to overturn congress's power to tax, which is so basic to the constitution that what you want is absurd. The only way to change Obamacare is by enacting laws.

Note that Roberts did not say the commerce clause supported Obamacare. The commerce clause is what congress used for civil rights and other liberal changes to the rights of individuals and the power of the govt.

 

[Freewill]

Ted Cruz, Then and Now
June 25, 2015By Taegan Goddard

“One of the best constitutional minds in the country.”

— Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), quoted in 2005 by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, on Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese.”

— Cruz, in a statement today on the Obamacare decision written by Roberts.

10 years ago we didn't know how big a dick Roberts really is. At least those on the right learn.

Well, 4 years ago I thought Roberts' aim was to take constitutional law back to pre-Warren. I'm still not sure. But the Obamacare suits were simply about congressional taxing power and simple statutory construction. I understand you don't like Obamacare, and neither do I, but you're wanting Roberts to be an activist Justice, and he's simply not going to overturn congress's power to tax, which is so basic to the constitution that what you want is absurd. The only way to change Obamacare is by enacting laws.

Note that Roberts did not say the commerce clause supported Obamacare. The commerce clause is what congress used for civil rights and other liberal changes to the rights of individuals and the power of the govt.

What do you mean, Roberts is already an activist judge. He changed the ACA when he changed the word penalty to tax. That one word tax might have meant the whole thing went down, but we will never know cause Roberts made law instead of kicking back to congress so they could decide if they wanted to raise taxes or not.

And now this, again the right thing to do would have been to kick it back to the congress and let them fix the language but again he was an activist. The wording, as I provided is really, really plain there is nothing ambiguous. The court could have kicked it back with say a 100 days period for Congress to either change the language or the language stands, what he did was pure activism. Now the question is, does the section of the law get changed or do they just ignore it? If just ignore it then does any of the law need to be followed?

As for hating the ACA, I am not really sure I do or not. I got screwed out of my health care that was promised to be because of the ACA but I am only one person and maybe just maybe it does actually help some people but for the life of me I don't know of one, really. Won't matter much longer in another 11 months I will be forced to become a government leech. Not sure what will happen with the wife.