Posted on 12/24/2014 11:44:18 AM PST by Libloather
>> Republicans in Washington will celebrate as the people they represent find themselves without access to essential medical care.
The consequences of regaining one’s liberties. It’s something worth fighting for.
Roberts is a strict constructionist. He will construe the language to mean that the subsidies are payable only to people in states that have exchanges because that's what the language plainly says. If the majority of the Court agrees, which I think it will, Obamacare will still be very much in place, but no subsidies will be payable to people living in states without exchanges. That begins the death spiral for Obamacare as we know it since the very people it was designed to help will not be able to afford the premiums.
Roberts hates Obamacare as policy and pretty much said so in his previous opinion. He was bound to follow his interpretation of the Constitution, however. He found that the penalty was a tax because there is Constitutional authority for that. As an attorney for over thirty years who has studied the Constitution extensively, I think he got it right (as much as I hate the result).
The conservatives on this board who have focused their ire on Roberts do not realize that the majority of the Court in that opinion, including Roberts, ruled that Congress does not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to force people to buy insurance. That was a big win for believers in smaller government.
Since Roberts change his mind and rewrote ACA into a TAX law (un-Constitutionally I might add), I question his Constitutional scholarly background and specifically question why he changed his vote to support the communist, Comrade obamatollah.
The logical conclusion is that they have something on him that he does not want the public to know, i.e., he is being blackmailed. One does not change 180 degrees without a reason. And if he has been blackmailed once, he can be blackmailed again.
Exactly. His kids and/or homo lifestyle.
That’s why I have no faith SCOTUS will do what’s right and follow the Constitution.
See John Roberts
I think it's safe to say that his Constitutional scholarly background far exceeds that of anybody who has criticized him on this forum.
What a childish thing to say. The author writes like a recently dumped teenage girl.
Roberts was justified by Grueber who plainly told us the whole thing was a tax.
Sadly, what Roberts ultimately did for CommieCare was totally and undeniably UN-Constitutional.
At best, he was Constitutionally challenged.
At worst, he was threatened, bowed to the threats and changed his vote.
Either way, we the people AND the Constitution got screwed.
Obamacare is insurance. Healthcare is a trip to the doctor or ER. Know the difference, and explain it to those who do not understand.
Retroactively? Will zerocare plan purchasers have to refund the subsidies they were given? I’ve seen SCOTUS find against a plaintiff in my home town here because finding FOR her would affect police department tickets by the millions all over the country. Attwood v Lago Vista PD, about 12 years ago, O’Connor wrote the majority opinion.
No doubt, but that means Roberts is quite familiar with the operating theory, adumbrated by SC justices during the New Deal, that the power to tax trumps putative limitations on government power. His redefining penalties as taxes was consciously driven by this principle in order to circumvent the need to use the Commerce clause. Which means the courts ruling about the Commerce clause is nugatory and cold comfort indeed.
This law has been changed dramatically in other respects from what was signed into law. I wonder how courts in the future might interpret the law? As written or as decreed by Obama?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.