[Christie at the beach]

I am praying so often for this to turn out good.

Thank you for the link and read.

[Perdogg]

ping

[Steely Tom]

Oh, honestly.

[TBP]

Roberts will save tehm. (Thank you, President Bush.)

[Repeal The 17th]

Four reasons from the article:
1. The plain text of the statute denies subsidies to people who live in states without an exchange.
2. There was no split in the circuits; the lower courts actually seemed to accept the Obama administration’s misreading of its own law.
3. I assume Chief Justice Roberts is with the original four dissenters from Sebelius two years ago in opposing the administration.
4. The Court will be acting in agreement with, rather than against, majority wishes.

[ArtDodger]

Four reasons they will probably vote for it: Bribery, blackmail. stupidity, evil intent.

[Ray76]

PPACA architect Jonathan Gruber openly brags about the benefits of political deception.

“this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3224927/posts?page=6#6

 

Informed commentary and all court filings and judicial opinions are available here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/11/07/king-halbig-et-al-head-to-the-supreme-court/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/08/04/the-halbig-cases-compendium-of-news-opinion-coverage/

[Cyman]

I disagree. It will be upheld as Roberts broadly hinted that Congress has the power of redress in the future. Robert’s will look like a bigger patootie if he now switches sides and no Justice has a diminished sense of ego let alone the Chief Justice.

[Diogenesis]

Church Lady: “Well, isn't that special?
The EXEMPT ruling on the little people."

"At the foundation of our civil liberties lies
the principle that denies to government officials
an exceptional position before the law and which
subjects them to the same rules of conduct
that are commands to the citizen."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis

[867V309]

The MIT horse's rear who wrote it bragged ON VIDEO that it would force states to create exchanges or lose their subsidy.

If SC rules that it doesn't say what it clearly does, the rule of law is deposed and we live under tyranny.

[Norm Lenhart]

There is one reason. The GOP took power. Thats it. Had the dems won again, the USSC would have codified it.

[MeshugeMikey]

Court followed up the landslide election

everybody wants to be popular?

[kenmcg]

Don’t ever theorize what the SCOTUS will do. All one has to do is look at Roberts and Obamacare.

[Principled]

Next up will be how to handle [politically] all the people who have to suddenly go without subsidies.

[Blood of Tyrants]

#3 assumes that John Roberts won’t perform legal gymnastics to give Obama what he wants.

[taildragger]

Go here:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorpatrickcolbeck

"Bye-bye Obamacare! The Supreme Court will be taking up the King vs Burwell case (very similar to Halbig vs Burwell). The plaintiff asserts that the text of the PPACA (aka Obamacare) only associates subsidies with Section 1311 (State Exchanges) not Section 1321 (Partnership and Federal Exchanges). If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, subsidies for plans on federal exchanges will be discontinued. If the federal exchanges no longer offer subsidies, all enrollees will be obliged to pay the market rate on insurance which has increased significantly under Obamacare. Since the individual mandate and associated IRS penalties are waived if coverage costs more than 8% of the household income, the enforcement mechanism for Obamacare disappears. This ruling is why I led the charge in Michigan to oppose our adoption of State-based or State Partnership exchanges. While we await our "Get out of Obamacare free card", we need to promote the implementation of my Patient-Centered Care Solution featuring Direct Primary Care Services so that our citizens will truly have access to affordable, high-quality care. This only happens when we keep the government from meddling in the doctor-patient relationship."

[grumpygresh]

Supreme Court cannot be counted on to protect the constitution; they change it every time they meet. Relying on a council of elders to right wrongs is ridiculous.
Supreme Court members need to be term limited. There should also be an override (supermajority) of Supreme Court decisions by congress.

[DoodleDawg]

Four Reasons the Supreme Court Is Likely to Rule against the Obama Administration in Burwell

Five reasons why I think they won't: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Roberts.

[Secret Agent Man]

4 libtard votes for this automatically.

will they blackmail roberts again? of course. and we’ll get a 5-4 decision upholding for no legal reason, but purely roberts’ own ass.

[Joe Boucher]

unless of course obammy blackmails Roberts AGAIN.
Sooo how’s that illegal adoption going for ya there Chief Justice?