Skip to comments.Supreme Court rejects GOP challenge to Obamacare, upholding health care law
Posted on 06/17/2021 7:21:35 AM PDT by NohSpinZone
The Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a closely watched legal battle targeting the Affordable Care Act, rescuing the landmark health care law from the latest efforts by Republican-led states to dismantle it.
The court ruled 7-2 that the red states and two individuals who brought the dispute do not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law's individual mandate to buy health insurance. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion for the court.
The Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of Obamacare's individual mandate or whether it can be separated from the remainder of the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Once again the excuse is “standing.” Just another word for avoiding tough decisions.
The states should just refuse to pay.
Roberts off to Malta with only a briefcase?
Watch out for him
I’ve been saying it.
its weird how this law helps no one in a realistic manner.
they would have been better off to make medicare available to any who wanted it, except that those under retirement age need to pay for their current coverages much like they would for private insurance. The advantage to this is that the customer pool would be so large that they could provide drastically lower rates.
Point here is that although i am not in favor of the government running just about anything, doing it the medicare-way i list above would eff people less than the current system which charges people huge premiums and huge deductibles and comes out to the individuals advantage if they have a catastrophic health event or issue.
“the red states and two individuals who brought the dispute do not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law’s individual mandate”
Individuals have no standing to challenge an “individual mandate”??? States don’t either?
So who exactly would have standing? Does the federal government have to challenge itself?
thats what this is really about..whos got the guts politically to just cut funding....the Court is saying “hey, dont hang this on us”...
Clarence Thomas was one of the 7. Should we watch out for him also?
Watch out for all of Trump’s so-called “originalist” judges.
“Kavanaugh Watch out for him I’ve been saying it.
Clarence Thomas was one of the 7. Should we watch out for him also? “
Touche. Well played.
How do states not have standing in an issue involving states?
Oh but it does, it enables the NeoFeudalists™ to ultimately dictate who gets life saving care and who doesn't, which will come in handy as the Social Security Ponzi scheme runs out of funds ...
<sarc>States were founded to ensure structural racism</sarc> ...
Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney “The Saint” Barrett sided with the libs.
I am shocked!
Red States should take it upon themselves, and nullify Obama care as they’re right to do so if States can nullify federal weed laws and prostitution laws they can nullify this too.
No standing = no effect = no obligation
And I thought it would be Gorsuch as the leftist mole.
That’s the perfect response. If there is no standing there is no obligation. Brilliant.
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.