Posted on 06/17/2021 7:24:23 AM PDT by rdl6989
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Thursday that the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, remains valid, rejecting a claim by a group of conservative states that a recent change to the law made it unconstitutional.
Republicans have long opposed the law, former President Barack Obama's signature legislation. But more than 20 million Americans now depend on it for their health insurance, and there is broad public support for its requirement that insurance companies must cover pre-existing health conditions.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I would not expect a GOP leadership like the one in place today to be able to address Obamacare’s dismal failures in the face of such media headwinds.
Lol. Its here to stay no matter what the law says. The robed lawyers have spoken.
“Here’s the actual opinion”
Here’s a piece of it, abbreviated:
Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge ... because they have not shown an ... injury traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing the specific statutory provision.
Guess the court doesn’t rule directly on a constitutional issue, but rather they rule based on an injury or injustice resulting from the constitutional issue.
If Thomas was in that block then we know it wasn’t ruling of constitutionality. He is as solid as they come. The other two are garbage. I think Trump should not provide a list next time around. He should go purely on gut and shouldn’t listen to anyone inside the beltway. Period.
This just beggars belief, and is a dangerous course for the Court to take - that states don't have standing to enforce the enumerated powers clause of the Constitution, when it is their injury and their powers that are being encroached upon.
I get it about frat boy and ACB, but where is Thomas in all of this?
The Supreme Court exists to enforce the will of the oligarchs against the will of the general population even in the face of all ration thought. For an obvious example I give you : legalizing faggot “marriage” .
Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s hard for me to interpret exactly what he said, but it seems as though he agrees with Alito about 90% on the ACA yet on this question, he says that the plaintiffs did not prove harm, as needed to overturn the prior decision.
Then why can’t it be dismantled if it has no teeth? Obama and ilk created it, and the courts ruled it was ,egal, so why can’t the courts now rule that it has no power now and should be dismantled? Can it never be undone because it was a ,iberal ‘law’ for zwhile?
In 2020 the United States lost its "We are A Nation of Laws" tradition, if you will. In 2020 The Republican Party collaborated with the Democrat Party to steal the Presidential Election from Donald J. Trump. The Supreme Court of the United States abdicated its responsibility using the pretext of "No standing" . The Lower Courts simply refused to do their duty. Thus the election was stolen. Resulting in the replacing of an honest and honorable man with a known liar and thief. Numerous laws previously agreed to by both Parties and written were violated and broken. The Constitution was shattered. Not to be outdone, the Republicans and Conservatives promptly stuck their heads in the sand and continued as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. And they continue acting as if nothing out of the ordinary happened until this day. Those in Control know what is happening though. Believe it or not. We aer a Nation that only the laws of the Powerful matter.
She and kav have failed on some pretty key issues. When is it time to co cider that perhaps mistakes were made in getting them elected to sc ?
When a case is tossed for lack of standing, the fault is not the court. It is poor legal thinking by the lawyers who brought it to court. It’s not difficult to find plaintiffs who have standing so that matters can be decided on merit, but somehow lawyers on this case managed not to do that.
To a degree it was a constitutional issue. Standing would fall under that.
Because they don't have to worry about replacing it.
Hey great. Put all 9 of them on it!
“I think Trump should not provide a list next time around.”
I disagree. A list of judicial candidates prevents people like David Souter from being nominated. The Federalist Society wasn’t a good resource for picking judges.
It’s amazing though how many lawyers there are who bring cases with no standing because cases ,eep getting thrown out for lack of standing. Can’t they forsee that their case doesn’t have standing?
SCOTUS to conservatives: “You have no standing, so get out of here!”
SCOTUS to leftists: “Come forward and let us know what you want. We’ll invent some legal fictions and use convoluted reasoning to make it happen.”
If the defendants don’t have standing, then what surprises me is not the verdict, but that they decided to hear the case in the first place
The basics of the opinion is that since the individual mandate payments were removed the individuals suing can show no harm from Obamacare and thus have no standing.
‘
That’s the right take.
The Elites always take care of the Elites first.
Kavanaugh will be dependable Dem Vote shortly.
‘
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.