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

This was a March editorial, but I believe it is very relevant to the upcoming USSC decision on King v Burell this coming Monday.
1 posted on 06/09/2015 2:22:03 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SteveH

The decision will be political, not based on the law. SCOTUS will side with Obama.


2 posted on 06/09/2015 2:26:21 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SteveH

Logic, statutory construction, plain English and the rule of law no longer have any relevance. Like most Supreme Court decisions, this one will be decided based entirely upon the outcome that is desired by a majority of the Supreme Court Justices.

There is no question how 7 out of the 9 Justices will decide. The only question is which way Roberts and Kennedy will flip.


4 posted on 06/09/2015 2:29:02 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SteveH

Has it been announced that the decision will be announced next Monday? I thought their release dates were kept quiet.


5 posted on 06/09/2015 2:30:31 PM PDT by Hardens Hollow (Couldn't find Galt's Gulch, so created our own Harden's Hollow to quit paying the fascist beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SteveH

Not as long as the NSA has such extensive files on them they won’t!


6 posted on 06/09/2015 2:37:35 PM PDT by null and void (I wish we lived in less interesting times, but at least we have front-row seats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SteveH

It was also crystal clear Obamacare was illegal. Yet the court fabricated an absurd rationale for upholding a law, that even if Congress lacked the constitutional power to do it, it could still penalize them for failing to comply through a “tax” (penalty). Among other things decision runs contrary to California Coastal Commission v. Nolan, where the then Supreme Court said government was forbidden to do indirectly (through the forcing of conditions to comply) that which it was prohibited to do directly.


11 posted on 06/09/2015 2:48:19 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SteveH

On the thin chance the courts strike this down, my bet is the Republican leadership will try to pass a bill adding the language necessary to continue the subsidies. They don’t have the spine to actually let it die and be responsible for it.

Any takers?


13 posted on 06/09/2015 4:03:28 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SteveH

My bet 5 to 4 vote of the SCOTUS killing the subsidies in states without state exchanges. Following that ruling Obama will start to blame the GOP. However the RINO leadership in Congress will try to fix the mess instead of killing Obamacare.


16 posted on 06/09/2015 4:09:56 PM PDT by The Great RJ (“Socialists are happy until they run out of other people's money.” Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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