FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
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.
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.
All it’ll take is a couple of phone calls and another blackmail and the divide will close pronto.
It’s going to be interesting to see whether the SCOTUS commie pig activists or the real judges win this one.
History tells me the Supreme Court will “fix” the ACA wording by deciding words mean what they need to mean now, not what they were meant to mean or what they actually mean.
It is harder and harder to see how anyone can honestly say we live in a Constitutional bound Democratic Republic when the SCOTUS has become our unelected legislators and congress little more than court jesters....pun intended.
Clearly, liberals will be liberals.
The problem with all of this is Justice Kennedy. He is only a swing vote when the consequences are small, otherwise he sides with the liberals who then have the majority.
Many people curse Roberts for “supporting Obamacare”, while he did the *one* thing he could have done to at least sour the victory of the liberals. By voting in favor of Obamacare, Roberts, as chief justice, could assign writing of the opinion to himself, which he did, then insert “poison pills” into the law, which he also did.
Kennedy wanted to be the deciding vote for Obamacare, and was livid at Roberts for stealing his thunder, so he voted with the conservatives. He wanted to give the liberals everything they wanted.
In any event, with this current case, the same problem is happening. Kennedy wants to let Obama do anything he wants with Obamacare. But Roberts is looking for some way to sabotage it.
Roberts may have no choice but to again vote “in favor” of Obamacare, but again, just so that he can undermine it.
So what? Bad decisions have bad consequences. Why should I continue to be punished for someone else's bad decisions?
I may be Pollyannaish here, but isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to delve into serious constitutional questions?
This will not end well.
First, I do not think Roberts will vote to gut Obamacare after the lengths he went to last time to rewrite the whole thing as just one big tax bill. From oral arguments this morning, it appears that Kennedy will also flip this time. So it is extremely likely that the Court will rewrite Obamacare to extend the subsidies by either a 5/4 or 6/3 vote.
In the unlikely event that the Court actually follows the law and throws out the subsidies then we will have a replay of the amnesty budget debacle.
The Democrats and the lamestream media will loudly blame the evil Republicans for stealing subsidies and insurance from millions of poor people who are now relying on it. The House will respond by passing a bill extending subsidies for this year and then terminating or scaling back Obamacare. The Democrats in the Senate will insist on a “clean” bill just extending the subsidies.
The Republicans will then cave and that will be that.