Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[Danzig]

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.

[OldDog]

In summary

"Affordable" does not mean affordable.
"If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" does not mean that if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" does not mean that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
"Penalty" does not mean penalty.
"established by the state" means not established by the state.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by OldDog

In summary

"Affordable" does not mean affordable.
"If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" does not mean that if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" does not mean that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
"Penalty" does not mean penalty.
"established by the state" means not established by the state.

You left out a key point...the Supremes validated it again! 6-3 not exactly a cliff-hanger, especially with the hard line right being predictable. While the right was busy hating him, accusing him of being Muslim and a non-citizen, Obama did what so many previous leaders could not..expand health care for the poor and middle class, and while the bill is far from perfect, it beats the hell out of the Republican version....oh, that's right, they don't have an answer, they just oppose Obama's! The party of "no!" can choke on another failure...gives me a happy!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

In summary

"Affordable" does not mean affordable.
"If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" does not mean that if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" does not mean that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
"Penalty" does not mean penalty.
"established by the state" means not established by the state.

what does jiggery-pokery mean?

so, what would you recommend be done? i keep seeing and hearing repeal and replace.
with what?

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-s...ing-blaze-fury

when i read that marshall, who didn't like his cousin jefferson, actually turned his back on ol thomas when administering the oath to the newly elected president, i thought 'how funny'. but that bit of petulance pales in comparison to scalia's tantrum over the aca.
tsk tsk

[OldDog]

Because bypassing separation of powers to "fix" a sloppy law (so affordable, it's mandatory!) is absolutely cause for celebration.

Founding principles?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Because bypassing separation of powers to "fix" a sloppy law (so affordable, it's mandatory!) is absolutely cause for celebration.

Founding principles?

That pic is from the other nite when Obama heard that Trump is running for President and is in 2ND PLACE!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Because bypassing separation of powers to "fix" a sloppy law (so affordable, it's mandatory!) is absolutely cause for celebration.

Founding principles?

What bypassing of separation of powers? What does that even mean?

[OldDog]

O. M. G.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

What bypassing of separation of powers? What does that even mean?

You do know that the Republic we used to have prior to today actually divided the powers of government, right?

Enumerated powers, checks and balances, all that stuff we had before political correctness and a 98% liberal press. Coincides with the time when America used to build things.

No, unfortunately, to address this to Ben Franklin, we couldn't keep the Republic.

Scalia's anger was quite justified. He is correct. We are now in a post-Constitutional America. And that should scare everybody. The words mean nothing. The Constitution has been shredded and now it's only the whims of one executive that drives all. Freedom is fading.