Posted on 03/04/2015 10:30:33 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Wednesday as it began hearing arguments on the fate of Obamacare.
Justices seemed “bitterly divided” during “heated” arguments over the law, reported The New York Times. If they rule that the federal subsidies the Internal Revenue Service has doled out for Obamacare plans are illegal, millions of people would no longer be able to afford their plans, and the entire law would be crippled.
The four liberal justices indicated strong support for the Obama administration’s position, in opposition to the most conservative members of the court. Those four will likely have to win over either Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who didn’t say much, or Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said he’s not comfortable with the administration’s position.
The law states that only people who buy Obamacare “though an Exchange established by the state,” are eligible for subsidies, but the IRS has subsidized plans for millions of people who purchased them through the federal exchange.
The law’s challengers argue that language effectively bars subsidies for plans bought through the federal exchange, but the Obama administration argues that the bill clearly intends for subsidies in all 50 states.
Kennedy indicated he doesn’t favor the administration’s argument, but also isn’t comfortable with the challengers’ argument. “Your argument raises a serious constitutional question,” he told Michael Carvin, who is representing the challengers against Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.
House Republican chairmen Paul Ryan, John Kline and Fred Upton, who are leading a group of Republicans tasked with finding an Obamacare replacement, attended the arguments. “We are here today because the Obama administration forced a flawed and partisan law on the American people,” they said in a joint statement.
“Its implementation has been one problem after another, and today’s case underscores just how far beyond the law the administration has gone to prop up this fatally flawed plan. The law is clear — and the Supreme Court should order the IRS to enforce the law as it is written.”
Thanks alot Orrin Hatch you worthless waste of a perfectly good suit.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
They have Roberts in the bag. That’s all they need.
This is what happens when you pass a law thousands of pages long with no time to read it. You have to pass it to find out it’s flawed?
The Court should rule that the law means what it says “. . . by the States.” And then they 5-4 majority should say that because it is so unfair and treats persons in the States so differently, that the entire Act is unconstitutional and can’t be fixed.
Oldplayer
It wasn't to be a Fed supported program. The states would have to fund it and provide "subsidies" out of their pocket.
In the meantime, the Feds would collect a percentage on EVERY policy written AND collect the "penalties".
"Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." - John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, 1777
What an awesome responsibility the Justices of 2012 have to Adams and the other Framers of America's Constitution to "make good use" of the opportunity they have now to "preserve" freedom for future generations by preserving the Constitution's separation of powers and limits on government power!
If they "do not," then history will record their action as a betrayal of the trust of all the brave men and women who have been willing to sacrifice everything for freedom's cause--from 1776 to now.
May they feel the heavy cloak of responsibility they bear for the freedom of those future generations, and may their opinions recall those ideas of individual liberty so beautifully articulated by the Framers of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
We're fixing to find out how bad the blackmail is on him.
Same as it ever was especially since around 1900.
I predict another John Roberts sell out to Obama.
Agrred.
Once a weasel, always a weasel.
To me, this case points up problems with passing comprehensive 2000 page laws, which nobody has read. The liberal view is that this federal/state unclear wording in the law was simply a clerical error in the wording. Well, perhaps liberals should be more careful when they shove 2000 page bills down our throats. This is a lesson beyond this case, of why we should not do comprehensive big bills on complex subjects.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr knows where the country is going and will side with Obama in hopes to stay out of The Gulags
Roberts is already bought and paid for.
Yep blackmail is a wonderful tool. I suspect Kennedy will also vote agains’t. This may go down 6-3 instead of 5-4.
You notice, don’t you, that the msm never wonders which liberal Justice might break and side with the semi-conservative wing?
Oldplayer
The court , like the republican party is just another wing of the Democrat party with a few very minor exceptions.
National suicide is the order of the day....
I say we give Iran a few hundred of our nukes and let them put us out of our misery.
Too bad they’re not BITTERLY CLINGING to our Constitution! Grrrrr! Jerks!
“Well, thats because half of the court are rabid liberal partisans who don’t give a sh*t what the Constitution says or doesn’t say.
Thanks alot Orrin Hatch you worthless waste of a perfectly good suit.”
You do know that the case currently before the court has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of Obamacare, right?
Four out and out communists who don’t give a damn what the Constitution or the text of the law says.
Three reasonably close adherents to proper judicial restraint.
One total squish.
One completely compromised by political blackmail.
We already have a Constitution that means whatever is politically convenient. Will we go a step further down the road to totalitarianism, where the plain text of the laws means nothing and expedience to marxist goals is the only guiding principle?
I’m not feeling too comfortable about this.
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.