Justice Kennedy Grasps At Straws To Save ObamaCare

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 03/04/2015 | Staff

[IBD editorial writer]

Health Reform: If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare in King v. Burwell, it will be because Justice Kennedy thinks doing otherwise would cause too much turmoil. But ObamaCare itself has already done that.

[Diogenesis]

.... it is because Judge Kennedy is EXEMPT,
as his is family, and his staff.

SCOTUS is proudly EXEMPT
and now “Laws” and taxes are for the non-EXEMPT, ONLY.

[ArtDodger]

Or... because pressure has been applied to the judges. Bribes, blackmail or a combination of both...
This case certainly isn’t be judged by its constitutionality....

[CMailBag]

What about the OTHER 300+ million, are they NOT in turmoil?

[bert]

Turmoil is not at issue. the plain meaning of the text of the law s what’s at issue

[Chode]

since when has turmoil been a consideration when it comes to deciding the law?

[Little Ray]

Kennedy is the swing vote. Oh, well.

[Amagi]

Yo, Kennedy, the issue for you is constitutionality which clearly ObamaCare is NOT?
As to turmoil, have you been paying attention to the turmoil ObamaCare has already caused?
Can you fathom the greater turmoil yet to come from the full implementation of ObamaCare?

[Tulane]

This article is utter stupidity. He was asking questions at oral argument, nothing more.

[TexasFreeper2009]

turmoil was exactly the point. It was written that way to encourage the states to set up their own exchanges. If the states don't want the grief, they can simply set up their own exchanges.

But Obama never thought the conservative states would be willing to put up with the turmoil, and it's not the job of the supreme court to bail him out after the fact. The law is clearly written, no subsidies for states without exchanges.

[kearnyirish2]

More importantly, anyone who thinks people dependent on taxes for their salaries is going to repeal a tax is a fool. Supreme Court justices are paid by taxes; why wouldn’t they assist in collecting them?

[armydawg505]

This is the same man who will force homosexual marriage on America this summer.

[Lady Heron]

So much for law.

Gee, wonder why funding DHS doing Obama's dirty work on immigration is a problem.

Laws do not matter if dems get stuff implemented illegally.

[2001convSVT]

“turmoil was exactly the point.”

Yes sir, even if the court finds for making obamacare subsidies in federal run exchanges, then the precedent is set for agencies and federal bureaucrats to arbitrary change/make new laws to suit the present regimes ruling policies (who needs Congress any more? with an ALL powerful presidency).

The only way to begain to restore constitutional balance, in the three branches of government is for the federal subsidies to be struck down.

[MrB]

I assert that “Obamacare” was more about

UNinsuring the insured

than it was about insuring the uninsured.

[Arlis]

When a SC judge considers the results of a ruling as being a factor in his decision, HE IS NO LONGER A JUDGE OF LEGAL MATTERS/ISSUES!

HE IS NOW A POLITICIAN!

That this is even being considered clearly shows that it’s over.

[Buckeye McFrog]

They know that the first time some poor schlub who loses his subsidy and then his coverage gets sick and dies, they will all be tried for Murder 1 in the mainstream press.

[sheana]

Actually, I think Roberts has proven he is the swing vote.

[ArtDodger]

I think there is more to it than that. Robert’s sudden about-face on the ACA ruling was weird. He didn’t just cave, he EMBRACED the opposite of where he had been standing. Smelled like blackmail to me.

[mrsmith]

He may be indicating that the issue is ‘non-severable’- therefore the whole law must be overturned.

But you really can’t tell much from questioning.