Supreme Court rejects new challenge to Obamacare law

Reuters ^ | January 12, 2015 | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

[Old Sarge]

Amen to all you said.

[loveliberty2]

Perhaps readers of this thread might like to examine the web site of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, an organization which has worked for decades on behalf of liberty and freedom. Read about its work.

[ldish]

AMEN!

[Ingtar]

Oh, I agree with you. I was just curious if they had shot that one down already, or if it was still waiting to be shot down. Placing hope in the USSC lately is not a good bet.

[Dr. Thorne]

This is in keeping with #16 of my predictions for 2015. The USSC will NOT overturn Obamacare for any reason.

[Pollster1]

Now I am sure there is only one way to get the country back, somehow there needs to be a massive “reset” and return the power to the individual states...becoming a republic again as was the original plan!

There is a procedure for that. It failed in 1861-1865, but we have much better grounds today. I hope the liberals will back down before crossing that line and restore the rule of law. Whatever happens, I'm on the side of the Constitution of the United States.

[Ray76]

From the article:

The court is now hearing a separate challenge to a key part of the law which, if successful, would deprive millions of Americans of tax-credit subsidies to help them afford health insurance.

Oral arguments in that challenge are scheduled for March 4.

Notice the wording? The suit would "deprive millions". If the Republicans have an iota of sense they will get ahead of this false meme.

[celmak]

"The court is now hearing a separate challenge to a key part of the law which, if successful, would deprive millions of Americans of tax-credit subsidies to help them afford health insurance."

SHOULD BE:

The court is now hearing a separate challenge to a key part of the law which, if successful, would deprive millions of American TAX PAYERS THE ABILLITY TO afford DECENT health CARE.

[Ray76]

If the courts rule for the plaintiffs, I’ll be interested see how many news agencies use headlines like, “Ruling Denies Subsidies to Millions,” versus the more accurate, “Court Rules Obama Gave Illegal Subsidies to Millions.”

Halbig v. Burwell Would Free More Than 57 Million Americans From The ACA's Individual & Employer Mandates

[ZULU]

I believe SCOTUS, probably led by that foul traitor Roberts refused to hear this case as they would have had to rule in favor of the physicians. This was an important case. They should have heard it. The only possible reason they didn’t want to is because they were litigating from the bench, acting as social advocates for a small sector of the population by screwing the rest of the Country.

[House Atreides]

This article is as clear as mud. What did the case encompass? I guess that was too much for the writer to document-—in the unlikely event he had a clue.