The other lawsuit regarding state exchange funding doesn't look good if this any indicator.
The autocrats who let Obamacare and this stand need to be impeached, pronto!
I guess they didn’t have enough “standing” to count.
And I can’t wait to see what the courts do with COS if it gets that far.
Amazing.
We allow a group of worthless political hacks (aka, judges) reject claims by a group of folks who have proven themselves time and again on the intellectual and achievement side.
And let’s think of the “qualifications” of those jokesters on the left of the soup-reem court.
USSC has already ruled (incorrectly, but ruled nonetheless) on the individual mandate. Unless this doctor’s group had some particularly novel approach to challenging it, I can totally understand why the USSC would deny cert.
As to the funding of subsidies for states without exchanges, I still have hope for that one. In terms of pure law, it’s cut and dry - the language of the bill is specific and unambiguous, and contemporaneous statements made by legislators and those helping draft the bill support that interpretation.
“The article didn’t break down the vote, but a 6-3 vote wouldn’t surprise me.”
The SCOTUS never releases the vote on cases they accept or reject.
ALL EQUAL UNDER THE LAW?
Not on your life.
The EXEMPT SCOTUS is determined to both piss on
John Jay’s grave (w.r.t. Obola’s birth)
and on the Constitution as the EXEMPT
continue making THEMSELVES, and Moslems, EXEMPT.
I suspect that the doctors group did not know enough about the Constitution and its history to argue the following against Obamacare. (Or was this doctor’s group possibly in cahoots with pro-Obamacare activist justices in an Alinski-type plan?)
As mentioned in related threads, regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, the Supreme Court had historically clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that they cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Getting back to historical Supreme Court clarification that the feds have no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate healthcare, I also suspect that activist justices are aware of that healthcare precedent. In fact, activist Justice Roberts referenced Gibbons v. Ogden in the Obamacare opinion to defend his support for Obamacare.
The Supreme Court is no longer supported by the real American people and they are a corrupted bunch of jackasses. Like most of the Federal Government it is useless to think they defend the Constitution and the will of the people.
Komissar komunitiz Organizings... Lawyers love to manage regulation, not follow the law,mbig difference.
They should be renamed Regulatorial accountant, just like tax advisors.
I’m thinking the opposite. I think the case that they do have before them is a loser for Obama....and therefore, this new case is moot for the time being.