Posted on 06/25/2015 7:09:40 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Six are the Chief, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
As for debt, the US debt is currently running at 103% of yearly GDP...and the UK is running at 82%. So they're slightly better off in that respect, but not by much.
As for the latter...I'm not so sure. Oh, there's a sizable minority in the US (20%?) who object to high taxes, but I think the many are quite willing to see taxes go up...especially at someone else's expense.
At least 47%, come to think of it....
The Republicans in Congress are very happy with this ruling.
There will still be people who will cry out to Boehner, McConnell and the other traitors as they are led up the steps to the guillotine.
Contact you State government - Senators, Representatives, Governor - and tell them to stand against the Federal assault.
YES! AND fewer doctors will accept payments from Obamacare... Your rates will go up and your access to health care will go down.
Fewer doctors will accept the worthless 'payments' offered.
Then standards will be lowered for Doctors.
Medical care will get worse.
Laws will be made allowing the IRS to take money out of people's checking accounts to pay their 'insurance' bills... because people will stop paying for the worthless crap...
... and the thuggery will continue until one day Americans wake up and realize they're living in a totalitarian hellhole. One that only offer 'heath care' to the politically well connected.
Back when people far more conservative than those elected ran in the primaries and abject morons decided that winning with the GOP choice was better than voting for and winning with a conservative. Or with someone more conservative than GOP leadership that tells their voters openly they intended, if given power, to work with Obama.
Now we all lived through that here on FR. There is no denying it. We heard “no matter what’ and ‘lesser evil’ and that the world would end because we hated our country by not voting whatever the GOP sent to the general.
So people sent the liberal GOP to power, they sided with Democrats just as many of us said they would. JUST AS MITCH AND BHONER SAID THEY WOULD.
And now people are sad because America just ended.
Well isn’t that just too bad. With any luck, in the next country that replaces America, they will be banned from voting because clearly that can’t grasp simple logic much less civics 101.
At this point, since we are now all subjects rather than citizens, we might as well go the single payer route.
This was the goal of Obamacare anyway. To make getting insurance so expensive and complicated that the only way to control costs is to control every aspect of our lives.
Makes you want to go out and buy a confederate flag. Only now we are all slaves and the damn Yankees are our slave masters.
The only legitimate response is to impeach all six judges who voted in the majority.
If that doesn’t happen, all is lost. We are a banana republic.
Yep
Words on paper mean nothing now.
The supreme court is infected with postmodernism. Postmodernists say that by means of deconstruction, readers of a text can ferret out its hidden or multiple meanings (polysemy). In this way, a reader’s subjective interpretation of a the text becomes more important than the text itself.Also significant is the subjectivity of the reader in determining what the author intended. Also the reader is allowed to invent new meanings. The text is freed from the tyranny of the author’s single intended meaning.
If I have to quit my job so they cant steal taxes from me, I will do so. If I must go without a doctor, I will do so. If I can not buy products I love because of the perversions of the business - I will not buy.
These are some of the peaceful ways I will not comply. I shall employ them until the time comes for a better solution.
I've seen plenty of people speak of "Going Galt" on the internet, but I've never come across anyone who has done so in Real Life.
You may be the exception. Good for you if so, you certainly have the strength of your convictions.
“Six are the Chief, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.”
Of course they are. But remember, the Chief is really a conservative ....
I still think we have some good people that are willing to fight the good fight. Cruz, Lee, Sessions, Jordan, even
Gohmert, etc. We shall overcome.
Yup, I've since read it and you're 100% right on both counts. "Shockingly contrived" is spot on. Scalia's dissenting opinion is very well reasoned.
Legitimacy is a key issue, and you are right that it is gone.
Not as long as they remain in the GOP.
The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the
State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the
Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and
the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.
=snip=
Exchange get no money under §36B.
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is
not established by a State is “established by the State.” It
is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits
to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by
the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to
include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of
limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious,
and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred
to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the
exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an
acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v.
Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of
interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this
case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to
yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The
Affordable Care Act must be saved.
=snip=
Ordinary connotation does not
always prevail, but the more unnatural the proposed
interpretation of a law, the more compelling the contex-
tual evidence must be to show that it is correct. Today’s
interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.
=snip=
It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State”
once. But seven times?
=snip=
Does a State that refuses to set
up an Exchange still receive this funding, on the premise
that Exchanges established by the Federal Government
are really established by States? It is presumably in order
to avoid these questions that the Court concludes that
federal Exchanges count as state Exchanges only “for
purposes of the tax credits.” Ante, at 13. (Contrivance,
thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)
It is probably piling on to add that the Congress that
=snip=
The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery in-
volves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose
the availability of tax credits on both federal and state
Exchanges. Ante, at 13–14. It is curious that the Court is
=snip=
The Court has not come close to presenting the compel-
ling contextual case necessary to justify departing from
the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the
contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of
the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole
leaves no doubt about the matter: “Exchange established
by the State” means what it looks like it means.
=snip=
otherwise ambiguous provision. Could anyone maintain
with a straight face that §36B is unclear? To mention just
the highlights, the Court’s interpretation clashes with a
statutory definition, renders words inoperative in at least
seven separate provisions of the Act, overlooks the con-
trast between provisions that say “Exchange” and those
that say “Exchange established by the State,” gives the
same phrase one meaning for purposes of tax credits but
an entirely different meaning for other purposes, and (let
us not forget) contradicts the ordinary meaning of the
words Congress used. On the other side of the ledger, the
Court has come up with nothing more than a general
provision that turns out to be controlled by a specific one,
a handful of clauses that are consistent with either under-
standing of establishment by the State, and a resemblance
between the tax-credit provision and the rest of the Tax
Code. If that is all it takes to make something ambiguous,
everything is ambiguous.
=snip=
SCOTUScare.
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act
or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two
decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through
the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation
they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medi-
caid] payments to the State” means only incremental
Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State”
means not established by the State) will be cited by liti-
gants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.
And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth
that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some
laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes
to uphold and assist its favorites.
I dissent.
No, you won't.
The whole point of Obamacare comes down to one simple difference with Medicare/Medicaid. Medicare and Medicaid are promises to pay without limit. This could never work "in the long run". Most people don't understand this feature of Medicare/Medicaid, but you can bet every single Member of Congress and every single Senator does. It's not that they thought that Obamacare was great, or even good - it's just that it got them off the hook.
With Obamacare, you can forget everything EXCEPT the fact that the government is now allowed to CHOOSE to pay or not pay, at their sole discretion, and private payment will not be permitted to make up the difference. All of the other aspects of Obamacare can be changed at will by mid-level bureaucrats - they can and they will - but none of that matters.
This changes everything. From now on, Federal and State health care payment schemes cannot become insolvent, because when they run out of money, they will stop paying and (unless the doctors agree to work for free) you just won't get the care.
...evil despots and opportunists who exercise complete control over our dying Republic.
The Constitution provides for a reset button, and Thomas Jefferson gave us a time frame.
I'm afraid the nation's demographics has passed the tipping point, such that patriot's numbers are on the wane.
5.56mm
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.