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


1 posted on 03/05/2015 4:36:47 AM PST by IBD editorial writer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: IBD editorial writer

.... it is because Judge Kennedy is EXEMPT,
as his is family, and his staff.

SCOTUS is proudly EXEMPT
and now “Laws” and taxes are for the non-EXEMPT, ONLY.


2 posted on 03/05/2015 4:38:46 AM PST by Diogenesis ("When a crime is unpunished, the world is unbalanced.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer

Or... because pressure has been applied to the judges. Bribes, blackmail or a combination of both...
This case certainly isn’t be judged by its constitutionality....


3 posted on 03/05/2015 4:39:34 AM PST by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer

What about the OTHER 300+ million, are they NOT in turmoil?


4 posted on 03/05/2015 4:43:38 AM PST by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer

Turmoil is not at issue. the plain meaning of the text of the law s what’s at issue


5 posted on 03/05/2015 4:48:40 AM PST by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12, 73, ..... Obama is public enemy #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer
since when has turmoil been a consideration when it comes to deciding the law?
6 posted on 03/05/2015 4:58:48 AM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -w- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer

Kennedy is the swing vote. Oh, well.


7 posted on 03/05/2015 5:10:15 AM PST by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer
Yo, Kennedy, the issue for you is constitutionality which clearly ObamaCare is NOT?
As to turmoil, have you been paying attention to the turmoil ObamaCare has already caused?
Can you fathom the greater turmoil yet to come from the full implementation of ObamaCare?
8 posted on 03/05/2015 5:10:18 AM PST by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer

This article is utter stupidity. He was asking questions at oral argument, nothing more.


9 posted on 03/05/2015 5:12:27 AM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer
turmoil was exactly the point. It was written that way to encourage the states to set up their own exchanges. If the states don't want the grief, they can simply set up their own exchanges.

But Obama never thought the conservative states would be willing to put up with the turmoil, and it's not the job of the supreme court to bail him out after the fact. The law is clearly written, no subsidies for states without exchanges.

10 posted on 03/05/2015 5:15:20 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer

This is the same man who will force homosexual marriage on America this summer.


12 posted on 03/05/2015 5:53:26 AM PST by armydawg505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer
So much for law.

Gee, wonder why funding DHS doing Obama's dirty work on immigration is a problem.

Laws do not matter if dems get stuff implemented illegally.

13 posted on 03/05/2015 5:56:06 AM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer

He may be indicating that the issue is ‘non-severable’- therefore the whole law must be overturned.

But you really can’t tell much from questioning.


20 posted on 03/05/2015 6:54:46 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IBD editorial writer

It seemed to me that Justice Roberts was pointing out if the language was left as is and the Supremes assumed Congress’ intention was to allow people to get health care subsidies even if their states had not set up anything, that a future President could block it by executive action. We really don’t want our goverment run by royal decree, do we?


24 posted on 03/05/2015 7:19:58 AM PST by finnsheep
[ 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