Posted on 06/17/2021 9:11:29 AM PDT by Drastic
The United States Supreme Court issued their ruling today in a major lawsuit from 18 states that challenged the Affordable Care Act put in place by former President Barack Obama.
This might come to a devastating blow to a vast number of Americans paying higher than normal premiums and/deductibles, but the Supreme Court ruled in a decision, 7-2, that Texas and the 17 other states “lacked standing to challenge its constitutionality.” The lawsuit also included two individuals who stood against the healthcare program that many Americans sometimes stated was overpriced and under-performing compared to their previous health insurances.
In other words, the Affordable Care Act remains in place, making this decision the third challenge that “Obamacare” has defeated and remained intact.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotfetch.com ...
Actually, it was a law passed in Congress under Pelosi's leadership that Obambi signed. Although Pres. Trump couldn't get it repealed, he did sign legislation that eliminated the penalty (Robert's so-called tax).
Here the States are the peons too. When it’s the world government demanding everyone get a mark and worship the beast if they want to buy or sell it will be the US federal government that will be a peon if it comes to that.
This story is already posted without the clickbait headline here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3968606/posts
Did you not see the religious liberty victory?
So the issue is not dead. We’re just in the process of figuring out who can run the case up the ladder. I hope that the supremes can provide some guidance on who that is.
Before people get incensed at SCOTUS, understand that there is no injury to anyone because there is no penalty, hence Obamacare is unenforceable. So in that context, lack of standing is the correct ruling.
I don’t like the fact that Obamacare is still on the books bc at some point the left can resuscitate the penalty if they have the votes in Congress.
So it’s all about the votes in Congress at this point.
If our side can get control of Congress and have a supportive President, then the whole thing can be repealed.
I’m focused on election integrity bc without it, nothing else much matters.
And two of Trump’s three Justices just crapped on us.
Well, not exactly.
I think the 9-0 ruling will uphold the parens patriae authority of States to issue very broad regulations under the rubric of public health, and thus to permit, or to require, employers to mandate it as a condition of employment.
I have said for years that these states and other affected parties have gone about the whole process of challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare completely wrong. In fact, they’ve been so consistently wrong that I’m getting more certain that they have no interest in overturning ObamaCare at all.
The simplest way to challenge ObamaCare is to have a state insurance commission approve insurance plans in the state that save customers a ton of money because they don’t meet all the stupid, onerous requirements of ObamaCare — i.e., they may not cover pre-existing conditions, they don’t cover sex change surgery, they don’t cover substance abuse treatments, they don’t cover treatments for STDs, they have annual or lifetime coverage caps, etc. A medical insurance plan that has half these provisions could probably cost at least 50% less than an ObamaCare-compliant plan.
This would clearly be a great avenue for a legal challenge to ObamaCare because the insurance industry is specifically regulated at the STATE level, not by the Federal government.
Here’s my simple question: Why the hell hasn’t the Affordable Care Act ever been challenged on these grounds?
Look at the formation system of the people who, 30 years later, become Supreme Court justices.
There is zero, or as close to zero as it's possible to get, dissent from the position that the health care system needs to be nationalized among the professors and others who teach future judges. This has been true for at least 50 years, perhaps 75 years.
If you met anyone socially who had been a classmate of any of the nine but who had somehow found productive work, I bet they would be shocked to hear you say you did not believe the system should be nationalized, it is a universal belief in the academic world.
Who DOES have standing? Illegal aliens?
Well, it looks like AZ Gov Ducey just smacked the AZ college system down with their demand that all students be ‘fully’ vaccinated before attending in person indoctrination, uh I mean education. Yeah, that’s it.
Yours is an excellent point ...
It's not going to matter in the long run.
Public officials who oppose universal vaccination are going to be removed by the voters and replaced by people who will permit it.
“When it’s the world government demanding everyone get a mark and worship the beast”
I’m not worried about that at all! SCOTUS will rule I dont have standing to get my forehead stamped or do any worshiping.
What about the federal government lacking standing to put this law in place to begin with??? Who looks after that??
A move that was cheered by me.
Man, I'm so glad those FReepers who sneered about how awesome they'd be simply because their "judicial philosophy" is "originalist" got their way and shoved those justices down our throats for a lifetime tenure making decisions for decades.
Shame on those of us who questioned the "originalist" narrative and wanted, you know, ACTUAL conservatives on the courts...
Both the GOP and Dems want employee health care off employer’s accounting books. The GOP is secretly quite happy with Obamacare because it moves closer to what their big donors really want.
>>Everything that goes to the Supreme Court seems to lack standing.<<
I would comment but I guess I don’t have standing to do so.
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.