Posted on 11/10/2014 4:25:16 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
Maybe it’s both. A subject of blackmail may very well provide the blackmailer the demands while arranging retribution. “Oh, you insist I vote in favor of 0care? Ok, I’ll do it...but don’t be surprised if _how_ causes it completely implode in a couple years.”
Just bringing up some somewhat viable theories beyond the simple popular views, trying to find the likely ground between simplistic vs conspiratorial.
Exactly.
Really really? Is this like a double really really dare?
The current crop of RINO’s will “correct the error in the law.” Watch and see.
One thing that always stuck in the back of my mind is a link I read,cant find it right now, when I was researching This stuff.this may be a link:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/13/scalia-comes-clean-on-obamacare-outcome-i-was-disappointed-with-john-roberts/
Went sorta like this.
Roberts was very close to another Justice, Scalia I think, not sure.But anyway this other Justice spent over a month trying to talk sense into Roberts since initially Roberts had been agasnst obamacare and was going to side with those who wanted to get rid of it but he had
Wish I could be certain of which Justice it was. But that always haunted me as just more indication that something really drastic happened to get Roberts to change his mind on an issue we consider a no brainer.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-roberts-switch-vote-on-obamacare-ruling/
“There’s some convincing speculation in the legal blogosphere that the unsigned dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld most of the Affordable Care Act, was originally written by Chief Justice Roberts as the Court’s majority opinion. If so, it means that Roberts switched sides at the 11th hour.”
................
Yet another take,the piece goes on to say that maybe Robets was saving his ammo for amnesty,or yet another legally inspired guess. Sorry I’m not buying it myself.
“The current crop of RINO’s will “correct the error in the law.” Watch and see.”
I fear that you might be right because if they are not COMPLETELY READY for the fallout if the Court kills off the subsidies, they will come crying to the President to let them ‘fix the law’.
How about loser makes $20 donation to FreeRepublic.
I’ll go for that. I’d rather pay FR to advertise my books, but they won’t do that....so we can make this deal.
I think a wager like this needs a thread of its own. I’ll put one up tomorrow.
Count me in.
They will twist themselves into whatever pretzel loops they can to justify lawlessness in the implementation of Obamacare.
ping me....
We have shared opinions over time on FR threads and I do respect yours. For what it's worth, here's the support for mine ...
I believe that [Pirate] John Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel loop to 'justify' the horrible initial "0bamacare" decision only to avoid a second case in 12 years where the SCOTUS would have been accused of deciding a POTUS election. The left and the media in the country would have been outraged and would have gone apoplectic on an endless 24/7 (think Citizens United on steroids) spittle-flecked tirade against the SCOTUS and this would have had an impact on the coming POTUS election. And remember, this would have been before 0bamacare collapsed upon itself with website rollout and all of the other failures of the "trainwreck". All of these subsequent failures would have been blamed on the SCOTUS opinion, even if not true. That's what democRATS do.
It was quite clear that the opinion had originally been written as striking 0bamacare down completely and had to be hastily rewritten in order to revise the conclusion. Justices' Scalia and Thomas were clearly P.O.'d.
Now there is no POTUS election and there are plenty of reasons it is dead of its own making. Clearly the country doesn't want it and the November 2014 elections have proven it.
The SCOTUS will now in proper order, following the decision of 'We The People', put the final nail in the coffin of this lawless POS called 0bamacare.
I hope you’re right, and that the Dread Justice Roberts acquits himself this time.
But make no mistake: that would be a complete undermining of the nature of Congress, and would invalidate the give-and-take of debate, negotiation, and compromise that is the foundation of a representative government.
The current liberal lie is that the lack of subsidies in federal exchanges was a "typo." The truth is that it was a deliberate negotiation and compromise to remove subsidies from federal exchanges as a result of the election of Scott Brown to the Senate in order to get the bill passed.
The law was written, debated, and amended, with the legislative purpose of explicitly preventing states on the federal exchange from getting subsidies. Subsidies were supposed to be an incentive for states to create their own exchanges. At the time, it was a political strategy by red states to reject state exchanges and leave Obamacare to the federal government.
Now that Brown is no longer in the Senate, Democrats no longer feel beholden to the compromise commitments, regardless of what the law of the land says. They are looking to the courts to restore what they originally wanted, but were "forced" to concede at the time due to "politics." Never mind that the law itself might not have even passed if these compromises weren't made in the first place.
If Roberts finds a way to still allow subsidies for federal exchanges, he would be saying that liberals never have to worry about negotiation and compromise again, because they will get what they wanted anyway when the courts rule in their favor later on. If the Democrat expectation really is that it doesn't matter what compromises they make situationally because the court will restore what the Democrats wanted eventually anyway, then we are dealing with bad-faith negotiators within Congress; Democrats who don't care what they agree to, and Republicans who go along with the charade.
Liberals will have the luxury of negotiating with their fingers crossed behind their backs from now on.
-PJ
MrB, with due respect, I think you are a prisoner of your own making. It is clear, as SOTC pointed out, that this decision was going the right way until a last second change - and that Scalia and Thomas were livid about it - and they still are.
Meanwhile, you should understand that these 9 people are not in a cave. They see election results. They see videos damning Obama Care by its own creators, they see public opinion.
It was the fear of public opinion that spooked Roberts (IMO) last time - that factor is totally different now. He may end up doing the wrong thing again, but to assume it because he did it the last time is to ignore a lot of changes on the ground.
Not their job
They expected every state to bite on the monies allotted to start up their exchange.
But if I heard Gruber right, the penalty was indeed a tax...they were just very careful to stay away from the word “tax”.
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.