Yet Again, A Scalia Dissent Is Used Against Him

Talking Points Memo ^ | 06/25/2015 | Tierney Sneed

[GIdget2004]

Justice Antonin Scalia strongly objected to Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, so it was amusing to see Chief Justice John Roberts use Scalia's own dissent in the last major Obamacare case against him.

It was buried in a footnote and amounted to a small dart lobbed Scalia's way, especially when compared to Scalia's blistering dissent that ripped Roberts' legal reasoning.

To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favor of Obamacare, in which Scalia said, "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."

Roberts used the line to argue that it "is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate" in a manner to limit the subsidies only to those states with state-operated exchanges, as the challengers in King v. Burwell argued.

[BenLurkin]

Not unusual.

[Up Yours Marxists]

Yeah...Right....

The law was written to BLACKMAIL the states into “compliance”. SCOTUS is supposed to protect WE THE PEOPLE from this type of heavy-handed political squeeze.

When’s it going to be enough for WE THE PEOPLE to drop the “R” word and go all out on their sorry tyrannical pinko socialist butts???

[Rodamala]

If we start today... it will take three generations to recover from the damage inflicted on The Republic by the past three. By that time, though, nobody will care... about must anything other than what time “Ow, My Balls” is on.

[mojito]

This is idiocy. Scalia simply noted another huge problem with 0bamacare as written. It didn't mean that Scalia was in favor of rewriting the legislation from the bench in order to save a poorly written and unconstitutional law.

[Cyman]

Robert’s arguments sound very similar to someone that murders her parents and then begs the court’s mercy as she is an orphan.

[William Tell]

One might as well argue that Congress, in enacting Social Security, had to know that insufficient revenues would be generated many decades down the road and thus, it would be perfectly reasonable for the IRS to demand that employers and employees double their deductions.

This would hold even if the present Congress were to explicitly ban such deductions.

I wish there was a way to convince my liberal relative that the nation is finished and that things will not work out at all the way he thinks they will.

[cuban leaf]

Roberts used the line to argue that it “is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate” in a manner to limit the subsidies only to those states with state-operated exchanges

---

Roberts is no fool. He knows that intelligent people know what he’s doing there. But he doesn’t care because the stakes are too high. Apparently, ruling in the other direction would result in such a negative situation that it was worth abandoning the constitution and the actual meaning of English words.

He’s probably right, but that doesn’t justify what he did.

[Williams]

Roberts must feel really proud siding with the three imbecilic disgusting leftist women on that “court”. Thank God Obama gave him company on that travesty.

[colorado tanker]

The Justices often duel with each other when they are on different sides of a decision and love to play gotcha. It's often in snarky footnotes.

It's been going on for quite a while and in my opinion is unbecoming the Court.

[Up Yours Marxists]

That only applies if they’re expecting to salvage the Social Security trust fund they keep looting.

Congress merely has to push the “reset button” on social security. “Sorry, social security will no longer apply to you. We will stop collecting and increase taxes to the same level. You’re screwed. Have a nice day.”

[Uncle Miltie]

They know they’re making sh*t up.

We know they’re making sh*t up.

They know we know they’re making sh*t up.

We know they know we know they’re making sh*t up.

There is no pretending anymore.

It’s a dictatorship.

[Paladin2]

Roberts needs to read Scalia’s dissent sentences and phrases in context.

[MrB]

“When in the course of human events...”

[MrB]

As I’ve said - they’ve dropped all pretense of legitimacy.

They only rule now through threats of deadly force for disobedience,
not through the consent of the governed.

Everyone needs to accept that and act accordingly.

[Up Yours Marxists]

Amen, brother.

I’ll fight when called upon. I may not be able to go to the front of the line of fire, but I’ve got two good legs, lots of energy (for an octogenarian), and a sharp mind.

Maybe I can clean khakis or prepare meals. Or drive vehicles. Anything to help the cause.

[txrefugee]

It’s the Alinski ridicule that conservatives get from the Democrat media every time it is obvious that this government has betrayed the Constitution once again. Today’s decision on SCOTUSCARE was just the latest example of this government’s corruption.

[SoFloFreeper]

TPM, a voice for the Fascist Obama Cult media, has to dig into a footnote to discern how Scalia is supposedly proven wrong.

Meanwhile, TPM (a voice for the Fascist Obama Cult media) ignores the plain written text of the law—just like SCOTUS.

Obamugabe’s Death Panels will not last, that is certain.

SCOTUS and the Obamacult Fascists have merely seen that law will last a little while longer.

[Political Junkie Too]

Roberts used the line to argue that it “is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate” in a manner to limit the subsidies only to those states with state-operated exchanges... He’s probably right...

He's not right. He's lying.

Roberts already knows that Congress acted in a coercive manner when in 2012 he struck down the linking of all Medicaid funds to accepting the Medicaid expansion for Obamacare.

It's disingenuous to now say that Congress would never have forced the states to create exchanges this way, when he struck down a similar scheme already.

-PJ

[cuban leaf]

Roberts already knows that Congress acted in a coercive manner when in 2012 he struck down the linking of all Medicaid funds to accepting the Medicaid expansion for Obamacare.

It’s disingenuous to now say that Congress would never have forced the states to create exchanges this way, when he struck down a similar scheme already.

---

Exactly. Which means he’s doing it for reasons unknown. We can only speculate. But the bottom line is that it is absurd on the face of it. You know it, I know it and he knows it. And he knows we know. Which means he’s willing to sacrifice his and the court’s credibility for something even more valuable, or pressing.

I wish I could see this from the eyes of ten years from now. I suspect I do though, or at least am on the right track.