Posted on 06/25/2015 12:09:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
While Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a blow to ObamaCare foes with a majority opinion upholding subsidies, he backed up the law's opponents on one point: The language in the Affordable Care Act was kind of a mess.
"The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting," he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting,” he wrote.
Then you send it back to congress!!!
F U J R!
“Can SC judges be impeached?”
Yes and it is easier to do than repealing the law of gravity but only SLIGHTLY easier.
Separation of powers is alive and well, all powers are separated from the voters.
To say that Obamacare was poorly worded implies that there is a correct way to word a ridiculous piece of legislation that totally defies any meaning expressed in the constitution of the United States of America.
“If this doesn’t end in a constitutional amendment to fix it then it is wrong to blame the “leaders.”
Constitutional amendment to fix what, Obamacare? I don’t think we can fix the problem of a supreme court which totally disregards the constitution anytime it suits them by amending the same constitution. You cannot fix the problem of law breaking by passing a law that says you can’t break the law. At this point it is absurd to speak of changing the constitution in any way, we have an entire government sworn to uphold the constitution and doing the exact opposite. If we had anything resembling honest government this Obamanation called the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” never would have even been suggested. Hillary Clinton could not even get it out of a committee of Democrats back in ‘93 and now we have the supreme court rewriting it so they can pretend it is legitimate. Alice in Wonderland makes more sense than America circa 2015. How about this for an amendment,
“Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
I think it altogether fitting to be reviewed by a Chief Justice who is himself somewhat of a Frumious Bandersnatch.
Well, that would encourage a lot of judicial outgrabings.
Many here used to say I don’t care if govt spies on me because I’m doing nothing wrong. The problem is that they can be spying on SCOTUS justices (like Roberts) and members of Congress (like Boehner) etc that can be blackmailed to do their bidding. Most Americans refuse to look beyond the front page and their partisan talking points.
They can be impeached, but only one Justice has ever been so - Samuel Chase back in 1800 or so. Wikipedia has the details, but the short version is, he was resoundingly acquitted, and that it sort of set a precedent that SCOTUS Justices were untouchable, as a practical matter.
So, basically, we’re stuck with the Roberts court and its supremely political decisions for the near future. One hopes a GOP win in 2016 will lead to some Alito-like replacements for Ginsburg and Breyer (the most likely lefties to step down, IMHO), but I’m not holding my breath anymore.
Roberts caked the drafting "inartful," not inaccurate.
The problem is that no one understand that he's talking about a legally coded meaning. That's why Scalia is pissed - Roberts isn't ruling wrongly, he's exposing the game.
Did you forget that Obamacare is a part of the TAX CODE?
That is its legal foundation by Congressional intent. That is how Roberts is ruling on it. Everyone is so upset, but no one is looking at what it actually IS.
[[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]]
Bears repeating
[[That’s why Scalia is pissed - Roberts isn’t ruling wrongly, he’s exposing the game. ]]
What game is that?
Oh, I see. Gruber should have been more surreptitious?
Any law that is passed in the future can be manipulated by the Black Robes. Those words mean something else, and let’s look at what was the INTENT of the words to produce the law.
God Almighty, we are in more trouble than I originally thought.
Thanks to info I come across from talented freepers with their eye on the ball --- that was the quote I was hoping would be recalled, but could not myself remember enough about it to know where to begin looking. I see Rush is picking up on it (the quote) as are handful of other places. There were more than a few places which provided coverage and discussion for that, and related issues.
As you remarked;
Exactly. It was intended to bully State governments, and inspire volunteer citizens to bully their own State representatives into doing what the then Democrat Party-led federal government wanted them to do. By Gruber's own admission it was a deliberate feature, not a poorly edited, overlooked mistake.
From Reason.com http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube Peter Suderman, Jul. 24, 2014. (I did not test to see if video there was still functional).
A few months ago there was an interesting article here
After a couple of paragraphs well worth reading (bookmarking the entire article for later reference could be worthwhile, for even only a few of the details found in the opening paragraphs alone), beginning from part-way down in the article;
Congress had a reason [for] not to extending subsidies to federal exchange (under Section 1311 of the ACA), while authorizing subsidies for states, the District of the Columbia, and any U.S. territory that created a “qualified exchange,” (under Section 1321 of the ACA). Congress wanted to incentivize the states to set up health exchanges while denying subsidies for a state’s citizens if the state refused to create an exchange. As one architect of the law explained:
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges.
The Administration thought that the ACA would be wildly popular. For many people, it is not. As of January 2015, only 14 states had established Health Exchanges. That meant that the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), using Section 1321 of the ACA, established exchanges in the remaining states. The IRS claims that when Section 36B refers to Section 1311 and state exchanges, there is some sort of ambiguity and it really means to refer to Sections 1311 and 1321 and federal or state exchanges.
The Supreme Court, in King v. Burwell will decide whether the IRS can define Section 1311 to mean Sections 1311 and 1321. If the Court authorizes the IRS to, in effect, change the meaning of Section 1311, that will be the first time that Congress has delegated the power to raise taxes or spend tax subsidies. If the President loses this case, HHS Secretary Burwell has told us, reassuringly (just kidding), that “we have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision.”
[bolding of text added]
Am I understanding this part of it correctly? if not, please somebody explain it, or provide link to some source which is could be relied upon... I don't want to tell it wrong, and leave anyone around here with an erroneous impression.
It appears to me that it was set up the way it was in order to make 'community organizers' out of all of us, (ok, enough of "us", and not just "navigators" from the Demo-crap camp) to harass our State representatives into setting up "State" health care exchanges (I HATE that term "health care exchange" -- wtf is being "exchanged"? huh? it's BULL-[expletive deleted] to the max).
So what grounds are left to fight this leviathan upon? That the IRS and HHS(?) was in effect delegated to raise taxes? And that by law (ACA), since individuals participating at State-run exchanges are to receive a tax rebate --- but others who are not in those sort of exchanges, but 'Federal' run exhanges do not (?) then in end results there is unequal tax burden?
Participate anywhere, and don't get fined by the IRS.
Participate at State-run exchanges, don't get fined by thr IRS AND get a tax rebate(?).
Federal run exchanges...IRS not after persons who participate but no rebate? Is that the way it goes...or has the Pant's on Fire Admin of the United States of America found a way to talk yet another exception into the law --- in order to cover his own backside, get what he wants, try to remain "popular", to hell with what laws actually say he just does whatever 'his people' tell him he wants to do anyway?
The game of using double meanings for the same words.
The original Constitution was written under common law and dealt with rights.
Current laws are written under corporate administrative law and deal with limited, government granted privileges.
That why the latter uses the terminology of the former - to hide the swap of meanings, the fact that it's only addressing limited privileges granted to corporations, and not the God- given rights of human beings.
That's why none of these rulings "make sense" - because they are NOT based on rights, but without ever admitting that, by hiding behind the theft of the same words used to describe freedom.
Don’t we have a lot of that already?
I didn’t forget anything, first they said it was NOT a tax, then Roberts said it WAS a tax to try to justify it. It is a total abomination against the constitution. To say that it is in any way justifiable means that the government can require you to do anything whatsoever from washing your arse twice a day to buying two chickens a week and penalize you for NOT doing so and call the penalty a tax, failure to pay taxes is punishable by fines AND OR IMPRISONMENT. I don’t understand why some people don’t seem to grasp the ramifications of this travesty.
One of the MOST absurd liberal attempts at justification is that this is nothing new since you were already required by law to buy insurance on your car. Anyone who believes the two are in any way comparable needs to go back to first grade. Amazingly those who have fallen for this all seem to think THEY are the smartest people in any room. Few of them seem to have any grasp of history, if they did they might realize that the founders of this alliance called the USA probably did not spend day after day in a hot, humid building without benefit of modern conveniences like running water and air conditioning, haggling over the meaning of words and the outcome of using them just so they could toss in a couple of phrases which amount to, “Okay, now that we have settled all that, just disregard all of it and pass any damned fool law that you want to pass.”
And thanks for your upcoming ruling declaring sodomy to be "marriage."
You're one clever guy.
>A double minded man is unstable in ALL his ways.<
Exactly. And while it still may be possible that he is being blackmailed, don’t you think before he was considered for the Supreme Court he was thoroughly vetted to see if there was anything in his past that could be used to blackmail him?
I personally think that 99.9% of those seeking any kind of office, political appointment, etc., is evil and strictly after power/money. They’re all fascinated with the thought of being a tyrant and lording over people. Even most of your law enforcement down to your little local Sheriff’s deputy in Small Town, USA.
Why is that? Because we don’t battle against flesh and blood, but the evil spirits lurking about us. And they rule these people who seek out power. They own/possess these people in Washington. Think of how shocked we are at the things we know about. We would probably literally faint upon finding out what we don’t know.
Look how quickly the pace is picking up. Race war talk. Banning the Confederate flag. Now already talk of banning the American Flag. Gay marriage now the law of the land. Blatant, in your face lawlessness by all branches of government. And us good people do nothing. Which is why this evil flourishes.
We better wake up and realize that calling and emailing our “elected officials” is a complete waste of time and that voting for anyone in either party is as well. Time for a radical new idea. A new party or a massive march on Washington. Before they’re coming through our Church doors arresting our priests/pastors and sending us to reeducation camps and banning our Bibles for hate speech.
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.