Skip to comments.Supreme Court upholds nationwide health care law subsidies
Posted on 06/25/2015 7:59:51 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.
The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Scalia now calls the bill SCOTUS Care.
I’m especially concerned about what will happen if SCOTUS forces same-sex “marriage” upon the United States. This has me worried. There have been plenty of divine shots across the bow (mostly of a climactic nature) over the past 6 months. I fear that all you-know-what will literally break loose if SCOTUS forces same-sex “marriage” on the United States. Stock plenty of batteries and bottled water just in case. And check your sump pumps. Make sure they work. Not sure all this will help if you live on a fault line (something for Golden Staters to worry about).
It seems the only ones NOT being paid off are we the people.
The Constitution limits the federal government.
Maxists/democrats like Obama and Roberts have violated the Constitution
Scalia should just start writing scathing op-eds and interviews and dare anyone to do anything about it.
Shameful, shallow, cynical Ends Justify The Means tyranny.
The old question is up once again for those who have the ability to move - where to go?
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is con - sistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Con - gresss plan, and that is the reading we adopt."
Note what's underlined. The intent of the law IS to destroy the insurance market, over time, on the way to single payer. Roberts should have trouble writing what he did with a straight face.
Big mistake by Bush . Bush could have picked some one like Janice Rogers Brown instead he picked stealth democrat/marxist Roberts
Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is “The Road to Serfdom.”3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.
It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people.
Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. Aaron Wildavsky gives a credible account of this dynamic. Wildavsky notes that the Madisonian world has gone “topsy turvy” as factions, defined as groups “activated by some common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community,”4 have been transformed into sectors of public policy. “Indeed,” says Wildavsky, “government now pays citizens to organize, lawyers to sue, and politicians to run for office. Soon enough, if current trends continue, government will become self-contained, generating (apparently spontaneously) the forces to which it responds.”5 That explains how, but not why. And certainly not why we are so comfortable with that result.
America’s Constitution provided an 18th Century answer to the question of what to do about the status of the individual and the mode of government. Though the founders set out to establish good government “from reflection and choice,”6 they also acknowledged the “limits of reason as applied to constitutional design,”7 and wisely did not seek to invent the world anew on the basis of abstract principle; instead, they chose to rely on habits, customs, and principles derived from human experience and authenticated by tradition.
“The Framers understood that the self-interest which in the private sphere contributes to welfare of society both in the sense of material well-being and in the social unity engendered by commerce makes man a knave in the public sphere, the sphere of politics and group action. It is self-interest that leads individuals to form factions to try to expropriate the wealth of others through government and that constantly threatens social harmony.”8
Look for this flag to be declared a hate symbol.
Totally worthless. Has not limited the federal government at all. Have you been asleep for the past several decades? This did not start with Obama. Or the democrats. You are delusional of you think a scrap of paper can limit aspiring tyrants.
Roberts is an owned piece of property IMO. On an important decision, he will be given his orders and will carry them out. His children are a perpetual hostage to what the Administration would do to him if he does not do what is required.
>>Roberts comes out as a full marxist/democrat/liberal <<
Either that or the NSA spying really did net some sort of impropriety on Roberts. Who knows, but something’s just wrong with this gubbamint.
We can now assume that the rule of law is dead in America. We should feel free to act accordingly.
It’s time for Oath Keepers to remember their oaths.
No doubt - that’s the whole underlying goal of the leftist agenda,
to criminalize Christianity.
“I havent put my flag out on my house since 2008. “
Same here, but I might start flying my Gadsden or Confederate flag.
` ... two nations, not under God, with economic subjugation and injustice for one.’
My Obama?!?!? I defend Obama?!?!? Hard to take you seriously after that. Obama is just a culmination of the past hundred years. The constitution has been enabling government growth for 150 years. You say “if they would have followed it” well of course, but it made it all to easy for it not to be followed. I repeat: a scrap of paper will not restrain aspiring tyrants. And Obama aspires like no other. Until the next administration.
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.