Skip to comments.BREAKING: Healthcare subsidies upheld by SCOTUS
Posted on 06/25/2015 7:09:40 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Six are the Chief, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
The term isn't mine. It was written in the dissent by Scalia.
” Oh geez, and now were going to have to listen to Obama and the drive-bys gloat about this for weeks to come....Ugh. “
LET’S TALK ABOUT, OH SAY, FAST AND FURIOUS.
or FAKED BIRTH CERTIFICATE
or DEATH haha OF FUDDY
or WHITEHUT FULL OF MUZZIES
or IRS TREASON
or PURGING MILITARY
or CLINTON TREASON
and ALL THE REST ~~~ [ Let’s pick one a day, or one a week, and just bang on it. ]
I don't see secession becoming mainstream for the foreseeable future.
Exactly...Once the damn thing is in place no matter how bad it is...It’s there to stay. The f’ing socialists know this. Civil War will be the only answer to cancerous socialism.
One day removed from the skells giving him his trade authority. The Kenyan hopefully hits the coke enough to stop his heart.
Thank you Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
>>> All laws now come with a you know what we meant penumbra.
Heck, a new law only needs to be ‘deemed it passed’ by the speaker and that’s that.
There was no doubt in my mind. Of course, they upheld it.
The statist wing of SCOTUS. Roberts. The gift W gave us that keeps on giving.
Bit of a Freudian slip on your part, as it should be "seceding", but in a roundabout way, I think your version may be more accurate!
My guess is he’s a closet fag and has pics of naked boys on his computer.
“When read in context, the phrase an Exchange established bythe State under [42 U. S. C. §18031] is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it could also refer to all Exchangesboth State and Federalforpurposes of the tax credits”
Roberts is almost certainly a closeted homosexual.
How many straight lawyers do you know with male roommates in their 30’s? I know plenty of lawyers, never heard of one that old shacking up with a male “friend”.
Roberts has said loudly and by now clearly that if he has his way the court is not going to save you from elections. So if you sit out an election in protest of your party, then as far as this court is concerned, you must live with whatever the Congress passes, during that session or elect the people to repeal.
It could be as simple as wanting to accepted by his pears, Kaygan, Sotowhatever, etc etc. He'd rather play cards and have cucumber sandwiches with them rather than Thomas and Scalia.
People do weird stuff just to be "liked" and part of the perceived "in-crowd", what does that say about their character, core and self esteem / worth issues?
Whaaaaat? What does this have to do with interpreting the statute they were ruling on? He didn't rule on what the statute said, he looked at the impact he thought it would have on the insurance market. Holy crap.
CW-II is larger in the rear view mirror than it appears.
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.