Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court rejects new challenge to Obamacare law
Reuters ^ | January 12, 2015 | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

Posted on 01/12/2015 8:13:15 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: ChildOfThe60s

Amen to all you said.


21 posted on 01/12/2015 8:40:50 AM PST by Old Sarge (Its the Sixties all over again, but with crappy music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Perhaps readers of this thread might like to examine the web site of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, an organization which has worked for decades on behalf of liberty and freedom. Read about its work.
22 posted on 01/12/2015 8:41:28 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

AMEN!


23 posted on 01/12/2015 8:53:26 AM PST by ldish (Have had enough...you??????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Oh, I agree with you. I was just curious if they had shot that one down already, or if it was still waiting to be shot down. Placing hope in the USSC lately is not a good bet.


24 posted on 01/12/2015 8:55:00 AM PST by Ingtar (Is this the Ebola and rumors of Ebola mentioned in the Bible?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This is in keeping with #16 of my predictions for 2015. The USSC will NOT overturn Obamacare for any reason.


25 posted on 01/12/2015 9:02:37 AM PST by Dr. Thorne ("Don't be afraid. Just believe." - Mark 5:36)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ldish
Now I am sure there is only one way to get the country back, somehow there needs to be a massive “reset” and return the power to the individual states...becoming a republic again as was the original plan!

There is a procedure for that. It failed in 1861-1865, but we have much better grounds today. I hope the liberals will back down before crossing that line and restore the rule of law. Whatever happens, I'm on the side of the Constitution of the United States.

26 posted on 01/12/2015 9:26:27 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
From the article:

The court is now hearing a separate challenge to a key part of the law which, if successful, would deprive millions of Americans of tax-credit subsidies to help them afford health insurance.

Oral arguments in that challenge are scheduled for March 4.

Notice the wording? The suit would "deprive millions". If the Republicans have an iota of sense they will get ahead of this false meme.

27 posted on 01/12/2015 10:23:08 AM PST by Ray76 (al Qaeda is in the Oval Office (and John Boehner is their craven servant))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"The court is now hearing a separate challenge to a key part of the law which, if successful, would deprive millions of Americans of tax-credit subsidies to help them afford health insurance."

SHOULD BE:

The court is now hearing a separate challenge to a key part of the law which, if successful, would deprive millions of American TAX PAYERS THE ABILLITY TO afford DECENT health CARE.

28 posted on 01/12/2015 10:44:37 AM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
If the courts rule for the plaintiffs, I’ll be interested see how many news agencies use headlines like, “Ruling Denies Subsidies to Millions,” versus the more accurate, “Court Rules Obama Gave Illegal Subsidies to Millions.”

Halbig v. Burwell Would Free More Than 57 Million Americans From The ACA's Individual & Employer Mandates

29 posted on 01/12/2015 11:14:00 AM PST by Ray76 (al Qaeda is in the Oval Office (and John Boehner is their craven servant))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

I believe SCOTUS, probably led by that foul traitor Roberts refused to hear this case as they would have had to rule in favor of the physicians. This was an important case. They should have heard it. The only possible reason they didn’t want to is because they were litigating from the bench, acting as social advocates for a small sector of the population by screwing the rest of the Country.


30 posted on 01/13/2015 4:01:12 AM PST by ZULU (Je Suis Charlie. . GET IT OBAMA, OR DON'T YOU??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This article is as clear as mud. What did the case encompass? I guess that was too much for the writer to document-—in the unlikely event he had a clue.


31 posted on 01/13/2015 5:10:14 AM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson