The Supreme Court has spoken. The ACA is here to stay. Millions now have health coverage that did not before. America's "I've got mine, so to hell with you" attitude has taken a body blow. Let the whining begin! 😏
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/live-scotus-obamacare-reaction-the-u-s-supreme-122423986811.html
25 Jun 15
“The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, referring to the challengers, “because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the act to avoid.”
Roberts does not disagree because the interpretation is not correct, but because of the outcome if the words were to be upheld.
That's a judge for you. He's just following the letter of the law, as long as it isn't too inconvenient.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0
Originally posted by EladarHe did what judges are required to do when interpreting statutes. He quotes extensively from prior decisions citing this centuries old rule of law:
[b]“The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, referring to the challengers, “because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the act to avoid.”
Roberts does not disagree becaus ...[text shortened]... sn't too inconvenient.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0[/b]
Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not
isolated provisions.”
p. 9
the
words of a statute must be read in their context and with a
view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”
“We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate
their own stated purposes.”
both at p. 15
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf
That idea that Congress did not intend people in all 50 States to be eligible to receive subsidies is ludicrous.
25 Jun 15
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah he did, he just gave Obama and the powers that be what they want:
He did what judges are required to do when interpreting statutes. He quotes extensively from prior decisions citing this centuries old rule of law:
Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not
isolated provisions.”
p. 9
the
words of a statute must be read in their context and with a
view to their place in the overall statutory scheme. ...[text shortened]... ongress did not intend people in all 50 States to be eligible to receive subsidies is ludicrous.
You know, public moneys diverted to public companies.
Originally posted by no1marauderStop assuming that the 2009 Democrat-run Congress had kindhearted motives when they wrote and passed Obamacare. The Dims meant what they said when they wrote that only purchases made through State exchanges would be eligible for subsidies.
That idea that the Democrats in Congress did not intend people in all 50 States to be eligible to receive subsidies is ludicrous. (fixed)
Why did they do this? Well, the Dims wanted States that did not implement Obamacare by creating State exchanges to be PUNISHED by their voters. The Dims assumed that most States would create exchanges, and voters in non-state-created-exchanges States would notice that their premiums were absurdly more expensive then premiums in state-created exchanges States. This "political reality" would result in voters electing state-level Dim politicians to create State exchanges.
Unfortunately for the Dims, their assumptions were wrong. Most States did not create exchanges because it was too onerous for them. Since most States opted not to create an exchange, the political consequence for failure to implement Obamacare did not exist. Rather, it backfired on the Dims and caused premiums to go up everywhere. So Obama unlawfully used his pen and phone to rewrite the statute so that subsidies were available for purchases made in Federal exchanges.
This is how modern Cultural Marxism works. Obey or else. You should know this, Marauder. After all, your fellow comrades on this board try to get you BANNED whenever you disagree with them, which is quite the spectacle I must admit, lol. Obey or else!
---------------------------
Here is direct evidence of the 2009 Dims' pernicious motives and the subsequent coverup:
(Gruber talking about the "political realities" of not creating a State exchange)
(Nancy Pelosi endorses Gruber's analysis of Obamacare)
(After the Gruber story broke a year ago, Nancy Pelosi claimed she did not know Gruber @ 1:15)
(Obama on Gruber in 2006)
(Obama on Gruber in 2014 claiming Gruber was not on his staff; Gruber stating in 2012 that he helped brainstorm w/ Obama on how to get Obamacare passed)
(A couple days ago, MSNBC admitted that the Obama admin was not forthcoming on Gruber's Obamacare role)
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarNot so sure that's reliable.
GW was such a great Conservative President that he appointed only conservative judges.
We must continue to vote for Republicans so that conservative judges will be appointed.
Scalia Reagan Anti-ACA
Kennedy Reagan Pro
Thomas Bush I Anti
Ginsberg Clinton Pro
Breyer Clinton Pro
Roberts Bush II Pro
Alito Bush II Anti
Sotomeyer Obama Pro
Kagan Obama Pro
Two judges appointed by Republicans voted Pro-ACA. If they were "faithful" to their Republican (conservative?) appointers, that would have been enough to swing the vote to 5-4 Anti.
25 Jun 15
Originally posted by JS357Nice job pointing out the obvious.
Not so sure that's reliable.
Scalia Reagan Anti-ACA
Kennedy Reagan Pro
Thomas Bush I Anti
Ginsberg Clinton Pro
Breyer Clinton Pro
Roberts Bush II Pro
Alito Bush II Anti
Sotomeyer Obama Pro
Kagan Obama Pro
Two judges appointed by Republicans voted Pro-ACA. If they were "faithful" to their Republican (conservative?) appointers, that would have been enough to swing the vote to 5-4 Anti. And Kennedy voted Anti-ACA in the 2012 decision.
I made a statement that was obviously incorrect to anyone with eyes, which includes myself. Good job pointing out exactly what I meant.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThe "hidden conspiracy" theory.
Stop assuming that the 2009 Democrat-run Congress had kindhearted motives when they wrote and passed Obamacare. The Dims meant what they said when they wrote that only purchases made through State exchanges would be eligible for subsidies.
Why did they do this? Well, the Dims wanted States that did not implement Obamacare by creating State exchange ...[text shortened]... le days ago, MSNBC admitted that the Obama admin was not forthcoming on Gruber's Obamacare role)
It's nonsense.
I suggest you read the decision. Chief Justice Roberts ridicules the idea that the Congress would have made everyone eligible for the subsidies but made the applicable subsidy amounts for individuals in the States without a State established exchange "$0":
Finally, the structure of Section 36B itself suggests that
tax credits are not limited to State Exchanges. Section
36B(a) initially provides that
tax credits “shall be allowed”
for any “applicable taxpayer.” Section 36B(c)(1) then
defines an “applicable taxpayer” as someone who (among
other things) has a household income between 100 percent
and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Together,
these two provisions appear to make anyone in the speci
-
fied income range eligible
to receive a tax credit.
According to petitioners, however, those provisions are
an empty promise in States with a Federal Exchange. In
their view, an applicable taxpayer in such a State would
be
eligible
for a tax credit—but the
amount
of that tax
credit would always be zero.
And that is because—diving
several layers down into th
e Tax Code—Section 36B says
that the amount of the tax credits shall be “an amount
equal to the premium assistance credit amount,” §36B(a);
and then says that the term “premium assistance credit
amount” means “the sum of the premium assistance
amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to
all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the
taxable year,” §36B(b)(1); and then says that the term
“premium assistance amount” is tied to the amount of the
monthly premium for insurance purchased on “an Ex
-
change established by the State under [42 U. S. C.
20
§18031],” §36B(b)(2); and then says that the term “cover
-
age month” means any month in which the taxpayer has
insurance through “an Exchange established by the State
under [42 U. S. C. §18031],” §36B(c)(2)(A)(i).
We have held that Congress “does not alter the funda
-
mental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or
ancillary provisions.”
Whitman
v.
American Trucking
Assns., Inc.
, 531 U. S. 457, 468 (2001). But in petitioners’
view, Congress made the viability of the entire Affordable
Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub-
sub-sub section of the Tax Code. We doubt that is what
Congress meant to do. Had Congress meant to limit tax
credits to State Exchanges, it
likely would have done so in
the definition of “applicable taxpayer” or in some other
prominent manner. It would not have used such a wind
-
ing path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amount of the credit.
pp. 19-20 of the majority opinion
(Emphasis added)