Amerikka loses and Obama Wins: SCOTUS upholds the ACA again.

[dismal]

This was not a case of constitutionality, it was a case of statutory interpretation.

However to reach its decision the court decided laws do not say what they clearly say when congress passed them, but they say what a president wants them to say - ignoring most of the precedent in the area which says it is not the courts job to fix badly drafted laws. Hence it is a blow to the rule of law and an increase in executive power.

If you are a fan of these things it is a big win. Hoorah, executive power and rule of man.

But since Obamacare is a Republican plan based on Republican ideas and is now further entrenched and since we are also told it is working fantastic it is clearly yet another blow to the a Progressive dreams of universal healthcare.

Since we were also told repeatedly it would be a disaster for Republicans for this ruling to be the opposite we can also conclude it was a big win for Republicans, and of course big health insurance companies seem to love it so it must be good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This was not a case of constitutionality, it was a case of statutory interpretation.

However to reach its decision the court decided laws do not say what they clearly say when congress passed them, but they say what a president wants them to say - ignoring most of the precedent in the area which says it is not the courts job to fix badly drafted laws. Hence it is a blow to the rule of law and an increase in executive power.

If you are a fan of these things it is a big win. Hoorah, executive power and rule of man.

But since Obamacare is a Republican plan based on Republican ideas and is now further entrenched and since we are also told it is working fantastic it is clearly yet another blow to the a Progressive dreams of universal healthcare.

Since we were also told repeatedly it would be a disaster for Republicans for this ruling to be the opposite we can also conclude it was a big win for Republicans, and of course big health insurance companies seem to love it so it must be good.

Well, the alternative isn't universal health care. It's what you had before Obamacare. It's a crappy plan but it's a step in the right direction which Hillary can improve on. It getting repealed would destroy the political appitite for healthcare reform for a long while and everyone would be worse off.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Clearly, our rights have been trumped by an usurpation of power by unelected judges and an executive branch hell bent on destroying the Constitution. I mean, Congress voted 50 times over the past few years to repeal this affront to our god-given freedoms, but you're telling me it took the votes of just six people to thwart the will of the people? Time for either a Constitutional Amendment or a Second Amendment solution!

This message brought to you by your crazy right wing cousin's Facebook page

Actually, it's remarkably close to what Rick Santorum had to say about today's gay marriage ruling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, the decision was legally indefensible...

I always think about the 2000 Bush v Gore II ruling when I hear that claim made. You know, the ruling where SCOTUS says you shouldn't use it as precedence for any other case.

- unless one wishes to ignore the Constitution's separation of powers and embrace SCOTUS as our true oligarchy of nine - which, I suspect, the majority do. On the other hand, we are spared to Republican clown act of trying to save the program in order to avoid blame, and it gives them a platform to continue to use OC (or Scotus care) as a target.

There is nothing remarkable in the opinion, other than it barely pretends to have a legal basis to what, I am sure, the majority know to be little more than a finding based on fear of (or opposition to) the actual written law. One sensed Roberts wrote with a wink, not unlike the Russian Judge in the Khodorkovsky trial...except that trial the judge laughed earlier, with the defense over the prosecutor's arguments, and then did his oligarchy duty and gave the tycoon the maximum new sentence.

Republicans tried to sabotage Obama, and SCOTUS told them to go fuck off.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

This was not a case of constitutionality, it was a case of statutory interpretation.

However to reach its decision the court decided laws do not say what they clearly say when congress passed them, but they say what a president wants them to say - ignoring most of the precedent in the area which says it is not the courts job to fix badly drafted laws. Hence it is a blow to the rule of law and an increase in executive power.

If you are a fan of these things it is a big win. Hoorah, executive power and rule of man.

But since Obamacare is a Republican plan based on Republican ideas and is now further entrenched and since we are also told it is working fantastic it is clearly yet another blow to the a Progressive dreams of universal healthcare.

Since we were also told repeatedly it would be a disaster for Republicans for this ruling to be the opposite we can also conclude it was a big win for Republicans, and of course big health insurance companies seem to love it so it must be good.

SCOTUS case law is replete with legislative intent--the "plain meaning of the statute" and all that. To interpret it the way the States wanted would have turned the thing on its ear. Stripped of all the legalese, the question was whether or not the ACA intended to leave millions devoid of health care based off one slightly ambiguous sentence.

Of course it didn't.

 

[bilby]

 

[SimpleDon]

This was not a case of constitutionality, it was a case of statutory interpretation.

However to reach its decision the court decided laws do not say what they clearly say when congress passed them, but they say what a president wants them to say - ignoring most of the precedent in the area which says it is not the courts job to fix badly drafted laws. Hence it is a blow to the rule of law and an increase in executive power.

If you are a fan of these things it is a big win. Hoorah, executive power and rule of man.

But since Obamacare is a Republican plan based on Republican ideas and is now further entrenched and since we are also told it is working fantastic it is clearly yet another blow to the a Progressive dreams of universal healthcare.

Since we were also told repeatedly it would be a disaster for Republicans for this ruling to be the opposite we can also conclude it was a big win for Republicans, and of course big health insurance companies seem to love it so it must be good.

The majority opinion relied on the principle of legislative intent clearly stated in all of the rest of the 1000 page bill. What they said was one poorly phased passage in one section dealing in unrelated matters shouldn't be allowed to derail the obvious legislative intent.

It is not a small irony that you of all people believe that the law should be undone because the authors didn't clearly state their meaning and their intent.

Since it took four justices to vote to hear is case and it is obvious that only political opponents of the ACA would consider this lawsuit to have any merit at all it is also obvious that the minority opinion lost one justice. It most likely was Roberts or Kennedy.

 

[Perspicuo]

Congrats, Yanks.

You've had the most advanced medicine in the world for some time. And now at last you're going to finally enjoy it.

 

[untermensche]

But since Obamacare is a Republican plan based on Republican ideas and is now further entrenched and since we are also told it is working fantastic it is clearly yet another blow to the a Progressive dreams of universal healthcare.

Actually it is one step closer.

The waste of a for-profit health insurance system is still there, still millions uninsured, even if Obamacare forces it to be a little fairer.

 

[RavenSky]

Congrats, Yanks.

You've had the most advanced medicine in the world for some time. And now at last you're going to finally enjoy it.

Getting closer to that point anyway. We still have 30 asshole republican governors that have refused to fully implement ACA in their states, thus continuing to deprives hundreds of thousands of people of health care.

My daughter will be case in point next month. Thanks to President Obama and ACA, I was able to put her back on my insurance for a couple of years, but next month she turns 26 and ages out. However, because she is a college student, she does not work full time, and therefore does not work get employer provided health insurance nor does she make enough money to qualify for the federal subsidies. So in states like Florida, because of the Medicaid defrauding alien lizard masquerading as our governor, those who can least afford health insurance are still fucked over.

 

[boneyard bill]

What stands out in my mind here is that most of liberal posters here do not even understand what the ruling was about. It did not challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare and would not have eliminated Obamacare.

The law was poorly drafted. It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

 

[jonatha]

What stands out in my mind here is that most of liberal posters here do not even understand what the ruling was about. It did not challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare and would not have eliminated Obamacare.

The law was poorly drafted. It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

It certainly would have had the effect of eliminating Obamacare in the likely event that Congress failed to act to fix their drafting error.

It is absolutely the function of the Courts to figure out what any legislation means. This is hardly the first case in which SCOTUS has had to make sense of conflicting or ambiguous text in public laws.

 

[untermensche]

What stands out in my mind here is that most of liberal posters here do not even understand what the ruling was about. It did not challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare and would not have eliminated Obamacare.

The law was poorly drafted. It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Liberals are not the ones that babble on about legislative intention.

Here the disturbed opponents of Obamacare get a ruling based on intention and like the scoundrels they are they demand decisions based on the letter, not intention.

What a pleasant nation we could have without these scoundrels.

 

[boneyard bill]

What stands out in my mind here is that most of liberal posters here do not even understand what the ruling was about. It did not challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare and would not have eliminated Obamacare.

The law was poorly drafted. It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

It certainly would have had the effect of eliminating Obamacare in the likely event that Congress failed to act to fix their drafting error.

It is absolutely the function of the Courts to figure out what any legislation means. This is hardly the first case in which SCOTUS has had to make sense of conflicting or ambiguous text in public laws.

It strains credulity to argue that the intent of Congress was include authority in the text of the bill that it did not include. This wasn't an issue of conflict or ambiguity. It was a error of omission.

But, then again, how can you discuss Congressional intent when they weren't even allowed to read the bill before voting on it?

 

[laughing dog]

It certainly would have had the effect of eliminating Obamacare in the likely event that Congress failed to act to fix their drafting error.

It is absolutely the function of the Courts to figure out what any legislation means. This is hardly the first case in which SCOTUS has had to make sense of conflicting or ambiguous text in public laws.

It strains credulity to argue that the intent of Congress was include authority in the text of the bill that it did not include. This wasn't an issue of conflict or ambiguity. It was a error of omission.

But, then again, how can you discuss Congressional intent when they weren't even allowed to read the bill before voting on it?

The bill was not sent from Mars, and after it passed the House, the Senate had negotiations over it, so it seems more than a bit odd to think Congress had no discernible intent.

Do you have a citation to substantiate your claim the Congress was not permitted to read the bill before passage?

 

[boneyard bill]

It strains credulity to argue that the intent of Congress was include authority in the text of the bill that it did not include. This wasn't an issue of conflict or ambiguity. It was a error of omission.

But, then again, how can you discuss Congressional intent when they weren't even allowed to read the bill before voting on it?

The bill was not sent from Mars, and after it passed the House, the Senate had negotiations over it, so it seems more than a bit odd to think Congress had no discernible intent.

Do you have a citation to substantiate your claim the Congress was not permitted to read the bill before passage?

Nancy Pelosi has been quoted time and time again for her famous statement to Congress, "You will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

 

[laughing dog]

Nancy Pelosi has been quoted time and time again for her famous statement to Congress, "You will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Actually, she said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy" (source:http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/). She has been conveniently and persistently misquoted since then. There is nothing in the actual quote that suggests that Congress was forbidden to read the bill.

As the SCOTUS pointed out in its decision, the intent of the bill in this regard is pretty obvious.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What stands out in my mind here is that most of liberal posters here do not even understand what the ruling was about. It did not challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare and would not have eliminated Obamacare.

The law was poorly drafted. It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Liberals are not the ones that babble on about legislative intention.

Here the disturbed opponents of Obamacare get a ruling based on intention and like the scoundrels they are they demand decisions based on the letter, not intention.

What a pleasant nation we could have without these scoundrels.

Could you please explain why the authors defined the term in dispute earlier in the bill and the why term they were fighting over suddenly changed meaning?
Could you explain how the plaintiffs in this case had standing?

also in light of this, can you explain why the constitution explicitly states that, "Congress shall make no law" and Congress continues to make laws?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The bill was not sent from Mars, and after it passed the House, the Senate had negotiations over it, so it seems more than a bit odd to think Congress had no discernible intent.

Do you have a citation to substantiate your claim the Congress was not permitted to read the bill before passage?

Nancy Pelosi has been quoted time and time again for her famous statement to Congress, "You will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Care to fully quote her, or do you want to take the easy "out of context" mine quote path?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What stands out in my mind here is that most of liberal posters here do not even understand what the ruling was about. It did not challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare and would not have eliminated Obamacare.

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

The law was poorly drafted.

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?