Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDog
The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html
|
The problem with this OpEd piece is pretty well summed up in comments left after it. I'll just quote them:
"What's NOT mentioned in the opinion piece is that David Rifkin was hired by House Republicans less than a year ago (August 25, 2014), to provide the House with legal representation to sue President Obama over the Affordable Care Act. I wonder if he is billing the U.S. taxpayers for his time spent writing this article . . . ?"
And:
"What undermines the authors argument, is that in this case we know the intent of the legislators, who for the most part are alive and available. This intent is not an unknown or an issue for historical speculation."
The intent of the legislation is quite clear; the three Justices who dissented are just shouting Moops.