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

[TyroneSlothrop]

“One would think that Mudwhistle's sentiments are a quite absurd cocktail. Huh?”

 

[Care4all]

So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?

lol, retards.

No, it would have went back to congress and they would have fixed it just like it is suppose to work. What is wrong with you people that you don't realize it is not always going to be Obama in office? I do disagree with the justice that this ruling will be used in other cases. The SCOTUS has shown it will ignore the actual language it won't be hard for them to ignore their own.

yeah, right....

They've had years to make this ''technical'' correction, but haven't...

They could have simply made the technical mistake's change....but that is NOT what Republicans wanted to do, or would ever do....and YOU KNOW IT....!!!

 

[Freewill]

So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?

lol, retards.

No, it would have went back to congress and they would have fixed it just like it is suppose to work. What is wrong with you people that you don't realize it is not always going to be Obama in office? I do disagree with the justice that this ruling will be used in other cases. The SCOTUS has shown it will ignore the actual language it won't be hard for them to ignore their own.

yeah, right....

They've had years to make this ''technical'' correction, but haven't...

They could have simply made the technical mistake's change....but that is NOT what Republicans wanted to do, or would ever do....and YOU KNOW IT....!!!

Yes they would have. Here is what would have faced them, an election in 2016 which I think they want to win but I am not positive that they do. The SCOTUS would not have invalidated SCOTUSCARE because they were asked to interpret the very clear and unambiguous section. They could have given congress 100 days to either change the section or it would be enforced. After a bunch of genuflecting the congress would have changed it. AS os their job not the SCOTUS. This is a usurping of power and I am not sure how anyone, right or left can be happy with how they did what they did. Especially when there were more logical alternatives.

Would you not feel better if they did what I suggested? Gave the power back to the governed not the will of 6 old men and women ruling extra judiciary.

 

[Care4all]

So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?

lol, retards.

No, it would have went back to congress and they would have fixed it just like it is suppose to work. What is wrong with you people that you don't realize it is not always going to be Obama in office? I do disagree with the justice that this ruling will be used in other cases. The SCOTUS has shown it will ignore the actual language it won't be hard for them to ignore their own.

yeah, right....

They've had years to make this ''technical'' correction, but haven't...

They could have simply made the technical mistake's change....but that is NOT what Republicans wanted to do, or would ever do....and YOU KNOW IT....!!!

Yes they would have. Here is what would have faced them, an election in 2016 which I think they want to win but I am not positive that they do. The SCOTUS would not have invalidated SCOTUSCARE because they were asked to interpret the very clear and unambiguous section. They could have given congress 100 days to either change the section or it would be enforced. After a bunch of genuflecting the congress would have changed it. AS os their job not the SCOTUS. This is a usurping of power and I am not sure how anyone, right or left can be happy with how they did what they did. Especially when there were more logical alternatives.

Would you not feel better if they did what I suggested? Gave the power back to the governed not the will of 6 old men and women ruling extra judiciary.

Under normal circumstances....yes....if the changes were done specifically for this ONE technicality.

But due to all the grand standing, and pontificating rhetoric by our politicians on the repeal of Obamacare, and the Republican plan to dismantle other portions of OCare with the technicality correction which they made public....

I think you might be fooling yourself if you think it would have been simply congress rewriting the 'blooper' argued about on this Supreme court case.

They could have DONE SO prior to this ruling and saved all of us the time and tax payer's money paying all the justices, judges and lawyers involved in this case, and saved us from the Supreme court having to even hear this case, and their final decision.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Right will rant about getting rid of the Supreme Court right up until the next gun rights case comes up.

 

[Care4all]

BTW, I still contend that each State DID ESTABLISH their own Obamacare exchanges....

Each State's Congress and Senate, (and then Governors signed in to law) took a VOTE on whether they would use their own exchange program that would need to be created from scratch, or use/contract the federally created programs specifically for their State, and which ever program THEY CHOSE via a vote, IS THE STATE's Exchange..... So the States DID establish their health care exchanges, whichever way they went....they still made the decision for their States.

 

[Freewill]

So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?

lol, retards.

No, it would have went back to congress and they would have fixed it just like it is suppose to work. What is wrong with you people that you don't realize it is not always going to be Obama in office? I do disagree with the justice that this ruling will be used in other cases. The SCOTUS has shown it will ignore the actual language it won't be hard for them to ignore their own.

yeah, right....

They've had years to make this ''technical'' correction, but haven't...

They could have simply made the technical mistake's change....but that is NOT what Republicans wanted to do, or would ever do....and YOU KNOW IT....!!!

Yes they would have. Here is what would have faced them, an election in 2016 which I think they want to win but I am not positive that they do. The SCOTUS would not have invalidated SCOTUSCARE because they were asked to interpret the very clear and unambiguous section. They could have given congress 100 days to either change the section or it would be enforced. After a bunch of genuflecting the congress would have changed it. AS os their job not the SCOTUS. This is a usurping of power and I am not sure how anyone, right or left can be happy with how they did what they did. Especially when there were more logical alternatives.

Would you not feel better if they did what I suggested? Gave the power back to the governed not the will of 6 old men and women ruling extra judiciary.

Under normal circumstances....yes....if the changes were done specifically for this ONE technicality.

But due to all the grand standing, and pontificating rhetoric by our politicians on the repeal of Obamacare, and the Republican plan to dismantle other portions of OCare with the technicality correction which they made public....

I think you might be fooling yourself if you think it would have been simply congress rewriting the 'blooper' argued about on this Supreme court case.

They could have DONE SO prior to this ruling and saved all of us the time and tax payer's money paying all the justices, judges and lawyers involved in this case, and saved us from the Supreme court having to even hear this case, and their final decision.

I posted this exact thing in another thread or post, they should have changed it before the SCOTUS. That would have made them heroes instead of zeros. But neither the democrat controlled or republican controlled congress had the foresight to do so.

So, how was the law changed? Was a section deleted? Will there be a page inserted that says, "this section doesn't mean what it says it means what the SCOTUS says it means?" I am not sure why Obama just didn't change it himself as he did other parts. If the SCOTUS invalidated that section then why would that not invalidate the whole thing? THEY CHANGED THE LAW and the intent at writing was EXACTLY what it said to that there is absolutely no doubt, in my mind. There is nothing unconstitutional in what was written and that is what the SCOTUS is suppose to decide.

 

[Freewill]

So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?

lol, retards.

No, it would have went back to congress and they would have fixed it just like it is suppose to work. What is wrong with you people that you don't realize it is not always going to be Obama in office? I do disagree with the justice that this ruling will be used in other cases. The SCOTUS has shown it will ignore the actual language it won't be hard for them to ignore their own.

yeah, right....

They've had years to make this ''technical'' correction, but haven't...

They could have simply made the technical mistake's change....but that is NOT what Republicans wanted to do, or would ever do....and YOU KNOW IT....!!!

IT was not a technical mistake it said exactly what Gruber said it said. How many times do you folks need told? Why can't there be honest discussion?

If it was, and it wasn't, a technical mistake it was a pretty damn big and glaring mistake. Just a reminder how f...ked up is the rest of the huge bill. Imagine the technical mistakes in something so huge. Especially if they did make a technical mistake, they did not, in something so fundamental.

 

[mdk]

The crybabies are still in the denial stage.

What the shit do I care? I didn't vote for Obama. I am pretty sure Obama had always supported gay marriage but lied about it get elected in 2008 and 2012. Besides, many people over the last ten years have changed their position on gay marriage.

 

[Freewill]

The crybabies are still in the denial stage.

What the shit do I care? I didn't vote for Obama. I am pretty sure Obama had always supported gay marriage but lied about it get elected in 2008 and 2012. Besides, many people over the last ten years have changed their position on gay marriage.

FYI, Mrs. Clinton also lied or changed her mind.

 

[Freewill]

BTW, I still contend that each State DID ESTABLISH their own Obamacare exchanges....

Each State's Congress and Senate, (and then Governors signed in to law) took a VOTE on whether they would use their own exchange program that would need to be created from scratch, or use/contract the federally created programs specifically for their State, and which ever program THEY CHOSE via a vote, IS THE STATE's Exchange..... So the States DID establish their health care exchanges, whichever way they went....they still made the decision for their States.

You should be on the SCOTUS or a gymnast, with the contortions you can do.

Read the bill, the language is clear and it references the section for setting up the state exchanges.

 

[Carla_Danger]

And Mitt Romney was pro choice, then anti choice.

 

[jillian]

So cool!

what's cool about him melting down and demeaning the court?

so funny.... the only thing the rabid right likes is spew

 

[mdk]

The crybabies are still in the denial stage.

What the shit do I care? I didn't vote for Obama. I am pretty sure Obama had always supported gay marriage but lied about it get elected in 2008 and 2012. Besides, many people over the last ten years have changed their position on gay marriage.

FYI, Mrs. Clinton also lied or changed her mind.

Be that as it may, I am still not voting for her.

 

[Freewill]

So cool!

what's cool about him melting down and demeaning the court?

so funny.... the only thing the rabid right likes is spew

Well as long as you take the high road and not demean anyone we will be AOK.

 

[jillian]

So cool!

what's cool about him melting down and demeaning the court?

so funny.... the only thing the rabid right likes is spew

Well as long as you take the high road and not demean anyone we will be AOK.

you demean yourselves

 

[AceRothstein]

So cool!

what's cool about him melting down and demeaning the court?

so funny.... the only thing the rabid right likes is spew

Oh Jesus Christ, it was a response to Staph's "Awesome!"

 

[mudwhistle]

The crybabies are still in the denial stage.

What the shit do I care? I didn't vote for Obama. I am pretty sure Obama had always supported gay marriage but lied about it get elected in 2008 and 2012. Besides, many people over the last ten years have changed their position on gay marriage.

Not really. Many people don't have a choice but accept it. So they don't really care anymore. Obama, on the other hand, completely reversed his opinion.........or was lying when he was asked in this case. It tells one about his character.

 

[Care4all]

So I guess it wouldn't have been tyranny by 'unelected judges' if the Court had ruled the other way?

lol, retards.

No, it would have went back to congress and they would have fixed it just like it is suppose to work. What is wrong with you people that you don't realize it is not always going to be Obama in office? I do disagree with the justice that this ruling will be used in other cases. The SCOTUS has shown it will ignore the actual language it won't be hard for them to ignore their own.

yeah, right....

They've had years to make this ''technical'' correction, but haven't...

They could have simply made the technical mistake's change....but that is NOT what Republicans wanted to do, or would ever do....and YOU KNOW IT....!!!

Yes they would have. Here is what would have faced them, an election in 2016 which I think they want to win but I am not positive that they do. The SCOTUS would not have invalidated SCOTUSCARE because they were asked to interpret the very clear and unambiguous section. They could have given congress 100 days to either change the section or it would be enforced. After a bunch of genuflecting the congress would have changed it. AS os their job not the SCOTUS. This is a usurping of power and I am not sure how anyone, right or left can be happy with how they did what they did. Especially when there were more logical alternatives.

Would you not feel better if they did what I suggested? Gave the power back to the governed not the will of 6 old men and women ruling extra judiciary.

Under normal circumstances....yes....if the changes were done specifically for this ONE technicality.

But due to all the grand standing, and pontificating rhetoric by our politicians on the repeal of Obamacare, and the Republican plan to dismantle other portions of OCare with the technicality correction which they made public....

I think you might be fooling yourself if you think it would have been simply congress rewriting the 'blooper' argued about on this Supreme court case.

They could have DONE SO prior to this ruling and saved all of us the time and tax payer's money paying all the justices, judges and lawyers involved in this case, and saved us from the Supreme court having to even hear this case, and their final decision.

I posted this exact thing in another thread or post, they should have changed it before the SCOTUS. That would have made them heroes instead of zeros. But neither the democrat controlled or republican controlled congress had the foresight to do so.

So, how was the law changed? Was a section deleted? Will there be a page inserted that says, "this section doesn't mean what it says it means what the SCOTUS says it means?" I am not sure why Obama just didn't change it himself as he did other parts. If the SCOTUS invalidated that section then why would that not invalidate the whole thing? THEY CHANGED THE LAW and the intent at writing was EXACTLY what it said to that there is absolutely no doubt, in my mind. There is nothing unconstitutional in what was written and that is what the SCOTUS is suppose to decide.

see, no one changed the law.... the people voting for the law, knew the fed exchanges if chosen by the State included subsidies, the Congress critters who voted against the law even knew the fed exchanges included subsidies, the governors of each state knew the subsidies were part of the federal exchanges, the government actuaries scoring the law, before and after it passed, scored it WITH the federal subsidies for the federal exchange in the costs of the total bill, calculated out for the next 10 years after passage, the GAO, and CBO both estimated the cost of the bill before passage and included this cost and gave congress their estimate with the subsidy costs on the federal exchanges, the senators and congressmen in each state that voted to utilize the federal exchange for their states knew the fed exchange included subsidies, and ''we the people'' knew the bill included subsidies including those states using the federal exchange....every bit of debate on the house and senate floors for the months previous to the passage are recorded and on record and not one of those speeches contradicts what EVERY ONE KNEW and thought, federal exchanges if chosen by the state, included subsidies...

Why even develop a federal exchange, IF IT DID NOT? Why spend the millions to create a federal exchange? The fed exchanges were ALWAYS meant to include subsidies, period....regardless of what you think Gruber said.

The supremes did not rewrite the law....they simply backed up the law that the congress and the senate voted for....and passed via a majority.

the people suing were wrong in their interpretation....as far as I can tell...

 

[Freewill]

No, it would have went back to congress and they would have fixed it just like it is suppose to work. What is wrong with you people that you don't realize it is not always going to be Obama in office? I do disagree with the justice that this ruling will be used in other cases. The SCOTUS has shown it will ignore the actual language it won't be hard for them to ignore their own.

yeah, right....

They've had years to make this ''technical'' correction, but haven't...

They could have simply made the technical mistake's change....but that is NOT what Republicans wanted to do, or would ever do....and YOU KNOW IT....!!!

Yes they would have. Here is what would have faced them, an election in 2016 which I think they want to win but I am not positive that they do. The SCOTUS would not have invalidated SCOTUSCARE because they were asked to interpret the very clear and unambiguous section. They could have given congress 100 days to either change the section or it would be enforced. After a bunch of genuflecting the congress would have changed it. AS os their job not the SCOTUS. This is a usurping of power and I am not sure how anyone, right or left can be happy with how they did what they did. Especially when there were more logical alternatives.

Would you not feel better if they did what I suggested? Gave the power back to the governed not the will of 6 old men and women ruling extra judiciary.

Under normal circumstances....yes....if the changes were done specifically for this ONE technicality.

But due to all the grand standing, and pontificating rhetoric by our politicians on the repeal of Obamacare, and the Republican plan to dismantle other portions of OCare with the technicality correction which they made public....

I think you might be fooling yourself if you think it would have been simply congress rewriting the 'blooper' argued about on this Supreme court case.

They could have DONE SO prior to this ruling and saved all of us the time and tax payer's money paying all the justices, judges and lawyers involved in this case, and saved us from the Supreme court having to even hear this case, and their final decision.

I posted this exact thing in another thread or post, they should have changed it before the SCOTUS. That would have made them heroes instead of zeros. But neither the democrat controlled or republican controlled congress had the foresight to do so.

So, how was the law changed? Was a section deleted? Will there be a page inserted that says, "this section doesn't mean what it says it means what the SCOTUS says it means?" I am not sure why Obama just didn't change it himself as he did other parts. If the SCOTUS invalidated that section then why would that not invalidate the whole thing? THEY CHANGED THE LAW and the intent at writing was EXACTLY what it said to that there is absolutely no doubt, in my mind. There is nothing unconstitutional in what was written and that is what the SCOTUS is suppose to decide.

see, no one changed the law.... the people voting for the law, knew the fed exchanges if chosen by the State included subsidies, the Congress critters who voted against the law even knew the fed exchanges included subsidies, the governors of each state knew the subsidies were part of the federal exchanges, the government actuaries scoring the law, before and after it passed, scored it WITH the federal subsidies for the federal exchange in the costs of the total bill, calculated out for the next 10 years after passage, the GAO, and CBO both estimated the cost of the bill before passage and included this cost and gave congress their estimate with the subsidy costs on the federal exchanges, the senators and congressmen in each state that voted to utilize the federal exchange for their states knew the fed exchange included subsidies, and ''we the people'' knew the bill included subsidies including those states using the federal exchange....every bit of debate on the house and senate floors for the months previous to the passage are recorded and on record and not one of those speeches contradicts what EVERY ONE KNEW and thought, federal exchanges if chosen by the state, included subsidies...

Why even develop a federal exchange, IF IT DID NOT? Why spend the millions to create a federal exchange? The fed exchanges were ALWAYS meant to include subsidies, period....regardless of what you think Gruber said.

The supremes did not rewrite the law....they simply backed up the law that the congress and the senate voted for....and passed via a majority.

the people suing were wrong in their interpretation....as far as I can tell...

Your whole post is your conjecture. The reason they created the federal exchange, and why it was so poorly done, is because only 16 states created their own.

In another thread I posted the EXACT law wording, not my opinion and not my conjecture.

Go read it for yourself. I don't know what they thought they were voting for but the language is VERY clear and in plain English.

Gruber said that is what they were doing when they wrote the law he is on video TWICE saying the same thing.

It really doesn't matter the whole law wasn't going to be invalidate because of this section, it just needed amended by those who are suppose to write law.

GO READ THE ACTUAL TEXT.