15

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Subsidies Under Obamacare

Posted by Poplicola 8 years, 10 months ago to News
71 comments | Share | Flag

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent.“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote, who was also joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the dissent.Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by woodlema 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You wait, next we will be mandated to buy Solar Panels and/or electric cars or face IRS penalties...

    2nd Amendment is getting to be our ONLY course of action soon.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 10 months ago
    you of course remember a politician asking what the meaning of the word "is" is. so why expect anything different from politicians today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think I was completely shocked a few months ago when a shirt-tailed relative first mentioned his 'Obama Phone'. I had no idea that they actually give out free cell phones. Smart phone at that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello gerstj,
    +1 The odds that the spineless talkers of repeal will actually follow through are very bad. I hope I am wrong.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gerstj 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Modified Option 2 -after it crashes and causes chaos and enough pain, it will be replaced by full government run health care which will, falsely, be offered as the great panacea for all of the health care problems. That was likely the original plan all along, but the Marxists couldn't get there without destroying the existing system first.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SamAnderson 8 years, 10 months ago
    Maybe Hamilton would WANT to be taken off the $10 bill, given the way the government has corrupted the currency.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by cjferraris 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, it died in 2008 when the PC crowd elected someone with no qualifications who was hell bent on changing the country, and he did...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago
    Never have I read a more tortured explanation than that put forth by Roberts. He twisted language into a pretzel in order to justify his support. This is now the UNASUCOA. The Unaffordable Supreme Court Act. With special emphasis on the "SUC" part.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am certain that writing two, ten or even twenty incorrect opinions would never be held to constitute high crimes or misdemeanors. Why not? Well, first there is the question of how to determine an opinion is "incorrect." In Roberts' case, for instance, the two opinions you are talking about (the ACA cases) are both majority opinions. That means that at least four other justices were "wrong" too. Do they all get impeached? How about the dissenters? Can't a stronger argument be made that they were the ones with incorrect opinions? Second, each Justice has cast literally thousands of votes while in office. A good case can be made that lots of those decisions were wrong. In fact sometimes Justices and Judges reverse themselves mid-career on fundamental points. Do we impeach them all? Finally, impeaching judges for incorrect opinions would provide an extraordinary weapon to be wielded by the Congress that would undermine the doctrine of separation of powers. Appointing federal judges for life was supposed to insulate them from political attack by the other branches. If the Congress could impeach and convict for wrong opinions that shield would be breached and the consequences would make the judiciary subordinate to the Congress in derogation of the framers' intent. Put in practical terms, the next time the democrats controlled Congress Scalia would be impeached and convicted. Is that the result you want? As to the issue of replacement of the recused Chief Justice at his trial, there is no precedent, but I'm guessing that the replacement would be the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Kennedy, I think?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 10 months ago
    I knew once they made the mandate constitutional, they would going to let this part go through too. The supreme court is just giving Obama what he wanted. This IS the age of socialism everywhere unfortunately.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No wonder they are taking Hamilton off the money. We dont really pay heed to the constitution anymore. Its a free for all with mob rule now. Might as well announce the elimination of the constitution altogether, and just say that laws will be put in and upheld by the majority, PERIOD
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It will slowly make it more expensive and unlikely to get good care in the USA. Inflation will go up, taxes will go up, and my desire to work hard will go down. What for? To pay for the unwashed and lazy?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They do take an oath of office, so do the legislators and prez. See how that worked out for us? Not well so far. Just try to get any of them out of office.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 8 years, 10 months ago
    Before one enters on the Execution of one's Office, one shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Section 8 Clause 3:
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    Article 10 U.S. Constitution
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Amendment XIV
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    First EVERY Federal official swears this oath. Violation of this oath IS grounds for removal of office or appointment.

    They all swear to uphold and defend the constitution, not how they want to see it, how they like to see it, how it “should be,” but AS IT IS!!!

    These IDIOTS on the Supreme Court with the exception of 3 this time, are so blatantly IGNORANT of the laws and constitution they swore to uphold I am totally aghast at the depths of ignorance out country is diving into.
    Not only did the Supreme Court invalidate the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law in general.

    How will basic Contract Law ever stand up now? “Oh that is not what I meant….even though I wrote it down that way…”

    Basic Principles that are so clear have been completely ignored. Section 8 Clause 3 is very clear and based on this ALONE Obamacare should have been stuck down.

    THERE IS NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!! YOU CANNOT BUY INSURANCE ACROSS STATE LINES!!! Ergo there is NOTHING for the Feds to regulate OR impose!!!

    What about THAT did these BONEHEADS NOT GET!!!!

    Next there is NO equal protection under the law in this law. Not when I have to pay 3 times as much for the SAME DAMN THING as a poor person. What next, I have to pay 15 dollars per gallon of gas and the poor person only 1 dollar? THAT IS NOT EQUAL PROTECTION!!!

    Article 10. Healthcare is NOT an enumerated power of the Federal Government. The state can do this but NOT the Federal Government.

    For all the rhetoric, for all the dialog and diatribe, and for all the people who keep changing the discussion, these three basic points are the ONLY REAL arguments that EVER should have been made.

    We are guaranteed Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, not the Guarantee of it. The Preamble does not say PROVIDE for Welfare, it says PROMOTE the General Welfare.

    Provide is pay for Promote is to encourage…

    Where did these IDIOT MORON Justices come from, certainly not this planet.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ohiocrossroads 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One incorrect opinion, no, but how about two or more? If there is a continuing pattern of him failing to uphold the Constitution, maybe a case could be made.

    After the Chief Justice recuses himself from presiding at his own impeachment, who chooses his successor? The president? The congress?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 10 months ago
    Everyone should get a copy of that dissent and frame it. It's absolutely scathing and humorous at the same time, but the ridicule it heaps on Roberts is astounding. I've never read a better dissent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 8 years, 10 months ago
    This decision by the SCOTUS points out the fact that the people have NO representation in the District of Corruption whatsoever. The legislative branch seems to be chock full of cowards or bought and paid for shills for the special interests. The executive branch seems to be hellbent on taking this country down the path to socialism or worse, whether "We the People" like it or not. Now the last bastion of appeal, the supreme court, has capitulated to the executive by rewriting the law to suit the current administration.
    What's next? Might as well send the legislative branch home as they don't seem to be doing anything anyway.
    Maybe its just me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years, 10 months ago
    Having a modicum of understanding of the phrase in the law that was in contention, having read the words, there could only be one "legal" outcome. However, accepting the reality of the powers that be, their agenda, the lack of morality in setting and achieving their agenda "for the greater good," and the political nature of what the SCOTUS has become, I am not surprised.

    As you know, there are stages of grief that we all go through when someone (or something) dies. I am past shock, denial, anger, bargaining and am, and for the last few years, have been at the depression stage. I know I'll die before reaching the acceptance stage and that, and that alone, gives my depression some relief.

    It is a sad day when the last branch of government demonstrates, definitively, that it is no longer worthy of respect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Federal Judges may be impeached and have been on numerous occasions. Of course they must be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate just like the president. That means someone in the House must introduce articles of impeachment alleging that the Chief Justice has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Writing an incorrect opinion does not meet that standard. By the way, guess who presides at the Senate trial. The Chief Justice! Of course he would recuse himself and one of the other Justices would replace him but the irony of the situation would be extreme. And yes, federal judges do take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. It is a more lengthy oath than that taken by the President but the gist is the same.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're not the only one to feel that way. Between this one and the homosexual marriage case, there are no checks on the Federal Government anymore. They can do whatever they want.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo