SCOTUS upholds Obamacare subsidies

[Clocker]

Vote was 6-3

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.

The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement. It came the same day the court gave the administration an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.

Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_SUBSIDIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[reckless]

As a conservative, the only possible good coming out of the liberal Supreme Court decision per ObamaCare is the fact that this effectively ends any presidential aspirations on Jeb Bush.

Pappy Bush and G. W. Bush gave us Kennedy, Souter, and Roberts -- all anti-Constitutional lawyers.

We can now put a fork in Baby Bush Jeb!.

[Tom]

Wonder how much Roberts got paid for that vote?
SC now in the business of writing laws.
Nice to hear not even the keepers of the constitution respect it.

[Clocker]

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

Roberts appears to be admitting that while the wording of the law says no subsidies, he does not think that was the intent of the Congress, so let's interpret the law in the way that I think they meant it, not as they wrote it.

Yet it is clear from the evidence of Gruber and others that actually wrote the law that they meant no subsidies for states that did not form exchanges.

[classhandicapper]

It's all irrelevant.

The handwriting is already on the wall for healthcare in this country.

In "X" years the government obligations are going to balloon far above the capacity of the economy to deliver them. The left will try tax increases, cutting benefits on the upper middle class and wealthy, printing money, lying, cheating, stealing, and everything else corrupt incompetent governments try (including blaming the other guy) in order to retain power. None of it will work. It will collapse and hopefully they and their kind will be recognized for the economic destruction they caused and tossed forever.

The only thing to worry about is whether you will be alive when it happens and whether you will have enough wealth stored to take care of yourself and your family when it does.

[DJofSD]

Vote was 6-3



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_SUBSIDIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Time to throw the US Constitution into the toilet. As a people, we are now toast.

I think it is now time to start flying the stars and bars.

[Clocker]

Wonder how much Roberts got paid for that vote?

Roberts' judicial philosophy is to give lawmakers as much leeway as possible to do what they want. His tortuous "reasoning" in approving the individual mandate is even worse than this one.

Unlike the moonbats on the court, he doesn't seem to care if the result is in line with progressive outcomes. He just wants to let Congress do what they want to the greatest extent possible.

[Robert Goren]

What I have got wonder is long the voters in the states who keep challenging the law in court and losing will keep voting in the same politicians who keep wasting their taxpayer money. No matter how you feel about the law, it has been clear from the beginning that it is constitutional. If you want to get rid of Obamacare, it will have to be repealed. The Supreme Court is not going to your dirty work for you. That has been clear all along. There has to be a special in Hell for lawyers who keep telling their clients that they can win in the next higher court even though they know there is no chance, if you will just gives us the money for an appeal.

[DJofSD]

For those that can read and comprehend above 8th grade level and would prefer to get it straight from the horses mouth, here's the actual ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

[johnhannibalsmith]

... No matter how you feel about the law, it has been clear from the beginning that it is constitutional. ...

:lol: :lol:

Right. Just so long as you converted from it not being a tax to oh yeah hold the phone definitely a tax.

[DJofSD]

Roberts' judicial philosophy is to give lawmakers as much leeway as possible to do what they want. His tortuous "reasoning" in approving the individual mandate is even worse than this one.

Unlike the moonbats on the court, he doesn't seem to care if the result is in line with progressive outcomes. He just wants to let Congress do what they want to the greatest extent possible.
So much for checks and balances.

[Tom]

Time to throw the US Constitution into the toilet. As a people, we are now toast.

I think it is now time to start flying the stars and bars.

Yes, it is time now more than ever.
Got to order few tonight.

[mostpost]

Roberts appears to be admitting that while the wording of the law says no subsidies, he does not think that was the intent of the Congress, so let's interpret the law in the way that I think they meant it, not as they wrote it.

Yet it is clear from the evidence of Gruber and others that actually wrote the law that they meant no subsidies for states that did not form exchanges.
The law does not say no subsidies. As Roberts correctly points out, having subsidies for some exchanges, but not for all makes no sense. Two words are key here, according to Roberts. The ACA provides that States can establish exchanges, but if they choose not to, the federal government shall establish "Such exchange" in that state. Legally, the word "Such" indicates something that is the same as. Or identical.

The intent of Congress was to create exchanges that were the same whether established by the States or the Federal government. It makes no sense that Congress would establish federal exchanges that would undermine the very Act they were passing.

As for Gruber; Gruber is an idiot. The purpose of his comments is to make himself look more important. Why would Congress-or more specifically-Democrats in Congress, include a provision in the ACA, which could destroy it.

The argument is made that Congress left subsidies out of the Federal exchanges to encourage states to establish their own exchanges. But that was clearly not an effective policy, and anyone would have been able to see that it would not be. In the meantime, the effect of withholding the subsidies from the Federal exchanges, would be to destroy the law.

I grant you, Congress is not overly bright, but I doubt even they would poison pill one of their own creations.

[Clocker]

As for Gruber; Gruber is an idiot. The purpose of his comments is to make himself look more important. Why would Congress-or more specifically-Democrats in Congress, include a provision in the ACA, which could destroy it.



If Gruber is an idiot, what does that make Obama for taking his advice about ObamaCare? Despite Obama's attempts to distance himself, the evidence is compelling. In case you missed it, there was just another data dump from the administration of some 20,000 pages of Gruber's emails.

The clause about subsidies was designed as a nuclear option to force states to open their own exchanges. This was clearly intentional, despite your learned legal opinion as to what the meaning of "such" is.

[boxcar]

What I have got wonder is long the voters in the states who keep challenging the law in court and losing will keep voting in the same politicians who keep wasting their taxpayer money. No matter how you feel about the law, it has been clear from the beginning that it is constitutional. If you want to get rid of Obamacare, it will have to be repealed. The Supreme Court is not going to your dirty work for you. That has been clear all along. There has to be a special in Hell for lawyers who keep telling their clients that they can win in the next higher court even though they know there is no chance, if you will just gives us the money for an appeal.

Of course not. The SC will not do any dirty work because it has already done it! Try to keep up with the news.

[mostpost]

Roberts' judicial philosophy is to give lawmakers as much leeway as possible to do what they want. His tortuous "reasoning" in approving the individual mandate is even worse than this one.
The "Tortuous reasoning" belongs to those who thought that Congress would include in a law, a provision that would essentially invalidate that law.

Unlike the moonbats on the court, he doesn't seem to care if the result is in line with progressive outcomes. He just wants to let Congress do what they want to the greatest extent possible.
I agree with you. Roberts does not seem to care if his decisions help or hinder progressive outcomes. Nor does he seem to care if they help or hinder conservative outcomes. He seems to base his decisions on what the law-in its entirety-says.

[Clocker]

For those that can read and comprehend above 8th grade level and would prefer to get it straight from the horses mouth, here's the actual ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

From Scalia's dissent opinion:

The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. Ante, at 13–14. It is curious that the Court is willing to subordinate the express words of the section that grants tax credits to the mere implications of other provisions with only tangential connections to tax credits. One would think that interpretation would work the other way around.

[Clocker]

I agree with you. Roberts does not seem to care if his decisions help or hinder progressive outcomes. Nor does he seem to care if they help or hinder conservative outcomes. He seems to base his decisions on what the law-in its entirety-says.

The ObamaCare bill went to great lengths to establish that nothing in it could possibly be interpreted as a tax in any way, shape or form. Roberts found that the only way the individual mandate could be construed as constitutional was under the authority of the federal government to impose taxes.

Therefore he ruled, in complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the law, and in complete contradiction of the clearly stated intent of the Congress and the administration, that the mandate was a tax. Please explain how that finding is justified by "what the law-in its entirety-says".

[OntheRail]

I agree with you. Roberts does not seem to care if his decisions help or hinder progressive outcomes. Nor does he seem to care if they help or hinder conservative outcomes. He seems to base his decisions on what the law-in its entirety-says.

No he is (they are) Legislating from the Bench. Not His or their job.... His actions are above his pay grade. If he wishes to be a Law Maker... He should step down from the Bench and toss his hat in for the Democratic nominations for President.

We are on the verge of being toasted... the fork is on the way.

When words have no meaning the weight of the laws can be swung in any direction. When that happens ruination has to follow.... Sad Day for Freedom.

[Clocker]

Roberts admits that the language of the law says that subsidies can only come through the state exchanges. But he says that the goal of the law is to give more people health insurance and since that part of the law doesn't seem to do that, the right thing to do is to ignore the meaning of those words and somehow construe them as having the opposite meaning.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” he added. “If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html

[lamboguy]

do you guys really think that any republican is going to say that less people should be forced to have health insurance?

i said this before this affordable care act was originally shoved down our throats. Obama did the dirty work for the republicans, and the republican's did nothing but complain, but deep down they were happy with the outcome.

Obama also made all the bankers and insurance people plenty of money, another thing the republican's are in ecstasy over.

this country needs people in power that are not connected to either one of these political parties. i think we are all sick and tired of politicians that run as conservatives or liberals and get in and act the opposite.

handicapping people running for office is a lot tougher than handicapping a horse race. at least the horse doesn't lie to your face.

[TJDave]

do you guys really think that any republican is going to say that less people should be forced to have health insurance?

i said this before this affordable care act was originally shoved down our throats. Obama did the dirty work for the republicans, and the republican's did nothing but complain, but deep down they were happy with the outcome.

Obama also made all the bankers and insurance people plenty of money, another thing the republican's are in ecstasy over.


True and double true. Those who call Obama a socialist need to open their eyes.

[Clocker]

Obama also made all the bankers and insurance people plenty of money, another thing the republican's are in ecstasy over.

Obama didn't do anything, he allowed it to happen without a clue as to what was going on. All he wanted was a healthcare program with his name on it. He turned the whole thing over to Pelosi and Reid.

They were equally clueless, so they turned the whole thing over to insurance company lobbyists and hired guns like Gruber. So the big winners were the big buck consultants, the people that got subsidies, and the insurance companies. Everyone else got the shaft in the form of higher insurance rates and higher healthcare costs. Take a look at the stock prices for insurance companies and large private hospital groups today.

PS As a result of ObamaCare, those insurance companies and private hospitals are becoming more and more the same thing. And when your insurance company owns your primary care clinic and your hospital, your choices go down and their profits go up.

[mostpost]

No he is (they are) Legislating from the Bench. Not His or their job.... His actions are above his pay grade. If he wishes to be a Law Maker... He should step down from the Bench and toss his hat in for the Democratic nominations for President.

We are on the verge of being toasted... the fork is on the way.

When words have no meaning the weight of the laws can be swung in any direction. When that happens ruination has to follow.... Sad Day for Freedom.
The court is doing precisely what it is empowered to do. This "Legislating from the bench" nonsense is exactly that. Interpreting the law is what the Judiciary is supposed to do. If not them, who?

[Tom]

The court is doing precisely what it is empowered to do. This "Legislating from the bench" nonsense is exactly that. Interpreting the law is what the Judiciary is supposed to do. If not them, who?

To interpret is not to assume what they meant when writing it. If that were the case, all he had to was ASK them. Thier job was to take what was written and determine if it was constitutional. They got it wrong. Nine unelected geezers should not ahve the power to that they have. The court is a mistake.

[Clocker]

The court is doing precisely what it is empowered to do. This "Legislating from the bench" nonsense is exactly that. Interpreting the law is what the Judiciary is supposed to do. If not them, who?

Taking the phrase "established by the state" and turning it 180 degrees from its literal meaning is not interpreting. It is rewriting the meaning of the words. And Roberts virtually admitted that he did that. If in fact a law is that ambiguous, the court should send it back to Congress to do over.

[Tom]

Can we send Roberts back to do over?

[Clocker]

I agree with you. Roberts does not seem to care if his decisions help or hinder progressive outcomes. Nor does he seem to care if they help or hinder conservative outcomes. He seems to base his decisions on what the law-in its entirety-says.

No, Roberts is just as concerned with outcomes as the moonbats. The difference is that moonbats are concerned about who gets helped or hurt. Roberts is concerned with the impact on the government, particularly if a decision would require a major change in the status quo.

He changed the meaning of the individual mandate to a tax so as to not disrupt the implementation of ObamaCare. He changed the meaning of the phrase "established by the state" so as to not disrupt the flow of subsidies. He is more concerned with the outcome than the law in those rulings.

[TJDave]

Can we send Roberts back to do over?

Except for Rehnquist, republican Presidents haven't been very lucky.

[Rookies]

Funny, the SC of Canada is just the reverse, striking down one law passed by our Federal Government, after another, as unconstitutional!

Of course, ours is a Con one. :lol: ;)

[TJDave]

Except for Rehnquist, republican Presidents haven't been very lucky.

On second thought, after Citizens United and McCutcheon they ought to build a shrine. ;)

[Clocker]

Scalia says that the ACA is now properly called SCOTUScare.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the following blistering dissent: “Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act.… The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed… will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Scalia summed up his dissent with a rebuke that will undoubtedly become the most memorable phrase associated with the Court’s latest bizarre ruling on this justly reviled health care law: “This Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality.… We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”


Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/63256/supreme-court-caves-obamacare-again

[mostpost]

This was clearly intentional, despite your learned legal opinion as to what the meaning of "such" is.
It isn't my learned legal opinion. It's the learned legal opinion of Black's Law Dictionary as referenced on page 10 of Chief Justice Robert's ruling.
See Black’s Law Dictionary 1661 (10th ed.
2014) (defining “such” as “That or those; having just been
mentioned”). In other words, State Exchanges and Federal
Exchanges are equivalent—they must meet the same
requirements, perform the same functions, and serve the
same purposes. Although State and Federal Exchanges
are established by different sovereigns, Sections 18031
and 18041 do not suggest that they differ in any meaningful
way. A Federal Exchange therefore counts as “an
Exchange” under Section 36B.

It defies credulity to think that Congress would employ such an ineffective method of forcing states to establish exchanges. It was three years plus before anyone even noticed that the phrase was even in the law. There was no need to be subtle. They could simply have said that the states will establish the exchanges. That is within the scope of Congress' powers under the interstate commerce clause.

[lamboguy]

Obama didn't do anything, he allowed it to happen without a clue as to what was going on. All he wanted was a healthcare program with his name on it. He turned the whole thing over to Pelosi and Reid.

They were equally clueless, so they turned the whole thing over to insurance company lobbyists and hired guns like Gruber. So the big winners were the big buck consultants, the people that got subsidies, and the insurance companies. Everyone else got the shaft in the form of higher insurance rates and higher healthcare costs. Take a look at the stock prices for insurance companies and large private hospital groups today.

PS As a result of ObamaCare, those insurance companies and private hospitals are becoming more and more the same thing. And when your insurance company owns your primary care clinic and your hospital, your choices go down and their profits go up.
you call that clueless? i call it 2 sides working together to clean out the middle class.

[Clocker]

They could simply have said that the states will establish the exchanges. That is within the scope of Congress' powers under the interstate commerce clause.


Companies can't sell insurance across state lines, but Congress can regulate it because of its power over interstate commerce. :D

[Clocker]

you call that clueless? i call it 2 sides working together to clean out the middle class.

No, I said that Obama and the Dems in Congress were clueless as to how to put together a national healthcare program that had the results they wanted. So they turned the details over to the insurance industry which put together an entitlement program administered by the insurance companies and paid for by the middle class.

[JustRalph]

Scalia's dissent is spot on. all you have to do is read it

[Clocker]

Scalia's dissent is spot on. all you have to do is read it

Some people get tired from having to move their lips when reading that much. Especially if it doesn't have pictures.

[ArlJim78]

Scalia says that since the court has basically taken the position that no matter the argument this law must be saved no matter what, to call it what it really is, SCOTUScare. its now trending on twitter.

we're beyond hope.

[zico20]

Obamacare IS unconstitutional. Roberts made it unconstitutional in his ruling. The next lawsuit will strike it down. There will be no getting around this one for the Democrats. Here is the article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy

Clear cut violation of the constitution. Of course Democrats have never cared if they violate the constitution if it furthers their socialist agenda.

[zico20]

What I have got wonder is long the voters in the states who keep challenging the law in court and losing will keep voting in the same politicians who keep wasting their taxpayer money. No matter how you feel about the law, it has been clear from the beginning that it is constitutional. If you want to get rid of Obamacare, it will have to be repealed. The Supreme Court is not going to your dirty work for you. That has been clear all along. There has to be a special in Hell for lawyers who keep telling their clients that they can win in the next higher court even though they know there is no chance, if you will just gives us the money for an appeal.

I assume you want the Supreme Court to do the dirty work on gay marriage though, don't you? BTW, Obamacare is unconstitutional. You just need to know the constitution to understand why.

[Ocala Mike]

I'm pleased with the decision, and it has been a great week for Obama. I've got to admit, however, that he owes a lot to Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty for today's SCOTUS decision in their parsing of the ACA:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

[TJDave]

I'm pleased with the decision, and it has been a great week for Obama.

I care more that the Senate just gave him permission to export more of our wealth. I guess the plan is to put everyone on the dole so Walmart and McDonalds stays busy.

[Clocker]

I'm pleased with the decision, and it has been a great week for Obama. I've got to admit, however, that he owes a lot to Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty for today's SCOTUS decision in their parsing of the ACA:

Or George Orwell.

In the classic work of fiction “1984” by George Orwell one way the rulers kept the masses under control was by redefining words to have meanings totally at odds with what those word really meant; “war is peace” and “freedom is slavery,” for example.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase " exchanges established by the States" means "exchanges established by the States or any other organization, group, or individual including aliens and the Federal Government".

Justice Scalia nailed it when he wrote in the dissenting opinion:

"Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by a State’"

But the most Orwellian aspect of this ruling by the Supreme Court is not that it redefines words but that it redefines America as being a country of men, not of law where what matters is not the law but what certain powerful individuals say the law should be.

Conservatives now have to face the reality that a coup has occurred in America. A coup not led by gun waving soldiers but by briefcase toting lawyers.

By rejecting the idea that the role of the Supreme Court is to figure out what the wording of a law means and pushing the view that the role of the Supreme Court is to do what's "right" -- as defined by liberal lawyers of course -- the system of checks and balances established in the Constitution has been weakened.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/scotus_rules_welcome_to_oceania.html#ixzz3e79qUrBF (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/scotus_rules_welcome_to_oceania.html#ixzz3e79qUrBF )

[zico20]

I'm pleased with the decision, and it has been a great week for Obama. I've got to admit, however, that he owes a lot to Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty for today's SCOTUS decision in their parsing of the ACA:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

Are you pleased with all the poor working people that have to pay for healthcare that they can't afford? You know, the ones making 20,000-25,000 a year who have had to choose between getting and paying for healthcare and buying food or having electricity. Or the ones who have to stop getting their prescription medicines because what little extra money they have now goes to buying mandated healthcare instead of medicine. What do you tell the person who may become homeless because he/she had to spend 200 bucks a month on healthcare that they could not afford or need.

The government has no right to tell the people what they must buy. The individual and employer mandates must be the first act if the next president is a Republican.

[Clocker]

The government has no right to tell the people what they must buy.

You have to keep up. According to Big Brother Roberts, there is no mandate to buy insurance. There is simply a new tax to help fund ObamaCare, and people that have health insurance get a waiver from that tax.

[Ocala Mike]

Are you pleased with all the poor working people that have to pay for healthcare that they can't afford?




I didn't say I was pleased with the law, just the decision. I am a proponent of "Medicare for All," but the ACA is what we're stuck with.

I had to face being drafted during the Viet Nam war; I enlisted instead. If government has a right to draft me into battle, I don't see it as much of a leap to order me to obtain minimum coverage health insurance.

[Clocker]

If government has a right to draft me into battle, I don't see it as much of a leap to order me to obtain minimum coverage health insurance.

You think the draft could be instituted today without a constitutional challenge?

[mostpost]

You think the draft could be instituted today without a constitutional challenge?
It has been challenged many times and each time the challengers have lost.
What do you think it means in Article one section eight when it says "Congress shall have the power....to raise and support armies?" It does not mean that Congress is limited to saying, "Would anyone like to be in an army? It would be such fun. Nobody? OK. We just won't have an army.

The power to raise an army means the power to compel service in that army.

[TJDave]

It has been challenged many times and each time the challengers have lost.


Well, there was that one guy....

[johnhannibalsmith]

... If government has a right to draft me into battle, I don't see it as much of a leap to order me to obtain minimum coverage health insurance.

For those that view the necessary purposes of central government to be limited, and the need to raise an army being a clear primary tenet of the common defense that falls under such heading, that is about as apples to oranges as it gets. To make matter worse, it by extension makes the case that government can be compelled to make you do just about anything since few things can by near definition of the circumstance arguably be worse than being forcibly marched into battle.

[Clocker]

What do you think it means in Article one section eight when it says "Congress shall have the power....to raise and support armies?"

The power to raise an army means the power to compel service in that army.



Dusting off your old law school texts today? While avoiding the question?

The question was, could the draft be revived without a constitutional challenge.

Also, the current status of the military is proof that Congress can raise and support an army without compulsory service.

[Tom]

Time to take it to the justices - personally.
Picket their homes, follow them everywhere, get in their faces, make thier lives a living hell.

Then, we burn some drug stores and get some free liquor.

That is the standard the dems have set, right?

Seriously, thank God some of those justices are closer to room temperature than not. NO ONE is fit to serve for life in anything. The court must go.

[horses4courses]

Time to take it to the justices - personally.
Picket their homes, follow them everywhere, get in their faces, make thier lives a living hell.

Then, we burn some drug stores and get some free liquor.

That is the standard the dems have set, right?

Seriously, thank God some of those justices are closer to room temperature than not. NO ONE is fit to serve for life in anything. The court must go.

You can always move to Costa Rica............ :lol:

[fast4522]

Tom has seen it all, it is the liberals who claim they will leave the country if they do not get what they want.