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.")
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
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
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)
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)
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?)
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.")
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
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.)
To: IBD editorial writer
This is the same man who will force homosexual marriage on America this summer.
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.
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!)
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?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson