Posted on 03/04/2015 12:37:04 PM PST by TangledUpInBlue
Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul three years ago by unexpectedly joining the liberal wing of the court, stayed largely silent in oral arguments on a new challenge that could deal a mortal blow to the law.
The argument centers on whether four words in the more than 1,000-page act should be interpreted literally, which would render millions of people who live in the dozens of states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges ineligible for federal subsidies to help them purchase insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“should be interpreted literally”
well, not when it doesn’t help you, i guess.
“Wow one post and conspiracy theorists are here already. No proof but whatever makes you guys feel good”
*YAWN*
Another Palin Hater checks in condescendingly.
Haters gotta hate....
I was being facetious & intentionally-vague. Continuing that 'tone', a humble correction IMHO:
I wish it was as academic as that — America government will should pay dearly if SCOTUS ignores law and/or again creates new law.
I would prefer to leave the 'will' in there, but please refer to my tagline...
You mean the Millennium Falcon didn’t make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs?
And when they do, they will prove that the US is a lawless country where the law is just another tool to oppress those with not enough power to seize control themselves.
>>You mean the Millennium Falcon didn’t make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs?<<
It did, but it blew a tire and wiped out.
And FWIIW, Han shot first.
State IS Federal. The penalty is a tax.
Up is Down, Black is White....
Intentional vagueness is underrated...
Roberts was silent before the previous ruling when he blindsided us. I seriously doubt that he’ll reveal his hand this time. But I don’t expect his ruling to be on the side of the Constitution any more than it was then.
Get back to us when Roberts screws us.....
I want to believe that your analysis has some merit. The fly in the ointment however is the "elections have consequences" thing. Our side lost in 2012 and lost by winning in 2014.
You have not been paying attention at all.
It doesn’t matter. If we win Obama will demand a “clean fix” and threaten to veto some funding bill if it doesn’t include it. Boehner and McConnell will say, “Well, we tried”, and cooperate with Dems to pass one over conservative objections.
That always annoyed me.
I saw some live updating on the SCT blog that gave insight into how the left wing part of the Court was trying to argue that, if the result of a literal reading is that you have a statute that makes no sense or results in defeating its own purpose, that reading will be disregarded. In my legal career, I haven’t argued a lot of statutory interpretation cases, but I recognize that as an argument that can be made consistent with one of the rules of statutory construction (ie: that the result of the interpretation should not be absurd or defeat the purpose of the statute).
I don’t disagree with your statement, but can you tell which rule is predominant?
Roberts has an out. Next time an adoption case is before the court, he should rule that his kids were legally adopted, regardless of whether that has anything to do with the case. Heck, that won’t be any more absurd than his 1st ruling on ObamaCare.
The fix is in. He doesn't need to speak.
.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved 0bamacare in 2012, stays quiet this time
MORE IMPORTANT! Everyone should write the House and Senate Judiciary committees asking for immediate action on the following issue. If you have a Senator or Member on Judiciary, write them a direct letter. The threat that Justice Roberts is subject to personal pressure merits review and consideration by Congress.
Three years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the tie-breaking vote in a ruling that saved President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform.
As everyone is aware, there is extensive gossip in the political community to the effect that Roberts and his wife have only two children who were adopted.
They were purportedly born in a foreign jurisdiction and there were in place legal constraints that effectively precluded US persons from adopting children born there under the circumstances of the Roberts adoption.
So to avoid those restrictions, the adoption was accomplished through the device of a third country system. Whether or not the third country worked to accomplish an effective adoption or not is not clear from the level of gossip in circulation.
The presumed threat is that the Roberts' could lose their two children several years down the road from the initial adoption events.
The end consequence of this condition, as reported by loose talk and political gossip, is that Roberts' vote on Obamacare was leveraged by the zero in the White House to uphold legislation that everyone knows is unconstitutional on its face.
I do not know what, if any, merit, substance, or facts exist to support the gossip.
I think it is and was the obligation of the Senate Judiciary Committee to know stuff like this. The gossip alone, unrefuted that it is by any authoritative response, affects confidence in our Constitutional process.
What should be done is that House Judiciary should immediately schedule a hearing on the issue and subpoena Justice Roberts to explain the actual facts.
Thanks, David.
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.
