Obama: Supreme Court wrong to take up ObamaCare challenge - he's "puzzled" 'cause it works

The Hill ^ | June 8, 2015 | Sarah Ferris and Jordan Fabian

[Buckeye McFrog]

translation: Got your marching orders, Roberts?

[proxy_user]

The Republican plan is a good one - pass the bill and let Obama veto it.

“See, we restored your subsidies, but Obama took them away!”

[PghBaldy]

“but all kinds of stuff that I do where, if somebody does something that doesn’t make any sense, it’s hard to fix,” -— I am glad Dear Reader explained it for us. THIS was the Editor of the Harvard Law Review?

[Uncle Miltie]

Censorship “Works”.

Idiot.

[TexasCajun]

Should'a read the bill Jack-ass!

It's your LAW !!

[Uncle Miltie]

What does 0bama have on Roberts?

Something so big and nasty Roberts will throw any case, apparently.

[Starboard]

Roberts will re-define “subsidies” just like he changed the mandate/fee into a tax. The fix is in. We’ve seen the movie before.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Obamacare has wreaked the economy, destroyed jobs and businesses, and this guy thinks snark is appropriate.

[Timber Rattler]

“Part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is, we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors of ObamaCare because none of them have come to pass,” he said.

I guess King Barry missed all of these stories about skyrocketing rates and deductibles, cancelled plans, and doctors dropping out of networks.

And oh yeah, how many of those even more troublesome provisions are still under illegal delay?

[VRWCarea51]

“Part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is, we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors of ObamaCare because none of them have come to pass,” he said.

That's right Sparky. We all saved 2,500 dollars a year on our Insurance and have kept our Doctors. /s In my particular case, what was Three years ago an Employer paid Benefit is now costing me $5,200 per year along with a 2,500 deductible.

[circlecity]

"Obama rejected the basis for the challenge and said it is “well documented” that the authors of the Affordable Care Act “never intended” to block people on federal exchanges from obtaining the subsidies."

How could that be "well documented" when congress never even got time to read the legislation much less debate it prior to a vote? There is no real legislative history. Further, the primary author said mandatory state exchanges for subsidies absolutely was the intent of the legislation. This is what happens when congress passes legislation before reading it.

[ryan71]

In other words, obama does not plan to abide by the court’s decision if it goes against him.

[samtheman]

So the great constitutional scholar is puzzled how constitutional review of a law works.

Is there a nobel prize for that?

[Lazamataz]

America’s democracy has failed. When we collapse, I propose we elect, instead of one president, seven co-presidents, all equal in power.

[dware]

A SCOTUS ruling favorable to zerocare will solidify the irrelevance of SCOTUS. OTOH, an unfavorable ruling will lead right into single payer.

[Starboard]

Our family GP sold his practice. He saw the Obamacare mess coming and wanted out. He took a very early “retirement”. Smart guy.

[loveliberty2]

Didn’t Gruber “document” that it was, in fact, “intended”?

[OKSooner]

Y-A-G.

Somebody will post some pitchas and stuff here soon enough.

[Graybeard58]

Obama rejected the basis for the challenge and said it is “well documented” that the authors of the Affordable Care Act “never intended” to block people on federal exchanges from obtaining the subsidies.

A damn'd lie, that was precisely the intent