Posted on 06/26/2015 4:50:25 AM PDT by NJRighty
The logic of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the latest challenge to Obamacare is simple: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his 6-3 majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
This is obviously true — and patently ridiculous.
It’s true because of course the goal was to improve markets. It’s absurd because government policies often have the opposite effect of what is intended — and the moral and legal onus in such situations falls on those who advanced the policies in the first place, not those who attempt to undo them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
More to the point is what does that have to do with what his job is? With this ruling the court has solidified the belief in my mind that we are living Oligarchy. held together by how much the ruling class can siphon from the general population. How is it possible, by the way, that Clinton isn't already under indictment for destroying government records?
Experts are predicting a surge of mergers between health insurance companies. Eventually this will lead to only one per region. Then all the Feds have to do is pay off a handful of senior executives to take a hike. They walk in, take over, and.....voila, Single Payer.
That’s so strange (I know this is tangent, but...) WHY kids from Ireland, when there are plenty in America? And he’s high profile, and he ought to have known (or maybe it was his reading compression) that it was not legal (being a judge and all...) It’s so bizarre.
“And he’s high profile, and he ought to have known (or maybe it was his reading compression) that it was not legal (being a judge and all...) It’s so bizarre.”
Where was the Bush administration vetting process? Bush should have put J Harvie Wilkinson, a true conservative, on the court. Was Roberts intentional?
There is an even simpler term for it: Lying.
I disagree with this premise.
Please read #15. I’m not the only one that thinks Roberts is gay.
They are reprobates, doing those things which to anyone with common sensibilities knows harms themselves, even a dog knows to come in out of the rain,
Reprobate = being devoid of sound judgement and reason,
We’re told straightway this would come,
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; “ Romans 1:28
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.” Hosea 4:6
That demonic spirit inside obama and empowering the left and their enabler sycophants like mccain, graham, boener and bush etc., knows its fighting a war,
They will set out increasingly blatant and in your face, to destroy the soft targets and low hanging fruit first, then they’ll come after what really matters:
Preventing any place for believers to stand alone with God without going through the all powerful evil corrupt state first,
And the only ones that could hope to stand against it, bible believing Christians, too many don’t realize yet whats happening, they think its a war against the likes of middle eastern terrorists/ISIS somewhere far away from their doorsteps, it is now at their front door,
I think it was intentional on Bush’s part.
When language in a statute is not ambiguous, there is no need to consider what the intent of the legislation was (as if the Congress truly even considered the intent, none of its members having read it). The language “established by the states” is plain and clear. It certainly was not subject to the “interpretation” Roberts gave it.
Give it up. You’re dreaming
Whole heartily agree.
I agree completely.
But, Roberts, and the writer, got the ultimate intent wrong, IMHO.
Further, when one considers the shenanigans and bribes that were used to get the bill passed, it's not even clear what the intent of Congress was, and through them, the intent of the people that elected them. Much better to stick to the language as written.
Another thing that comes to mind: Since the SC decides on interpretation, and doesn't find original facts, or even consider new ones, I for one find it insulting that Gruber, the main architect of the law, can state clearly and proudly that the intent was as written to coerce state cooperation and the language accurately conforms to that intent, but this information can't even be considered.
Stop it!!
There IS NO ‘LOGIC’ here.
Thru blackmail or bribery or whatever—the word is give our Kenyan what he wants, and to hell with the sheeple and whatever THEY want.
Since this case took five years to wend its way through to the USSC, how are voters to hold their elected “representatives” accountable in the meantime? Obviously voters can’t rely on the plain language of bills that their rep voted for/against.
Claiming the language was ambiguous is a trick every teeanger learns early on: “Gee, I didn’t understand what you meant by ‘be home by midnight.’
Puts Roberts in the category of ‘the meaning of is.’
Stop it!!
There IS NO ‘LOGIC’ here.
Thru blackmail or bribery or whatever—the word is give our Kenyan what he wants, and to hell with the sheeple and whatever THEY want.
So if businesses were getting rich by violating the civil rights of citizens the SC could rule this to be OK because ruling otherwise would be “disruptive”????
You have to be kidding me.
Whole lot of these gub mint types could use to be dragged behind pick up till they have no flesh.
Not that i would advocate anyone doing such,
Just that it might do some of them good.
Exactly. The mergers will happen to “lower” the skyrocketing premiums... which they will not do. Then, people not being able to afford premiums, and subsidies not keeping up-— voila! Nationalized insurance. Merciless, incompetent, and insufficient insurance to our modern medical knowledge and care.
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.