Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
What I found fascinating about the case is that the plaintiffs named really didn't have standing to even be a part of the case:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...eputation.html
There were people who thought the Supreme Court would dismiss based on the plaintiff's not having legal standing to bring the case. Which might have been perceived as a punt. This is better. Also, Scalia's rage is hilarious. |
i was worried that they might do that...but i figured they'd only go that route if they didn't want to rule. i'm glad they took the case and ruled that they did.
i've been accused, not on here but elsewhere, of being inconsistent. they say why do you support if you don't like all of the law? and it's because it's a start, hopefully one step on the way to single payer, universal, whatever one wishes to call it.