Page 11 of 154 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 1534

Thread: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

  1. #101
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,904

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    Well, yes it's technically a tax (because the SC says so), but it's essentially forcing Americans to buy a private product by virtue of their simply being alive.

    But the point I was making is: the SC has ways of using logic to get wherever they'd like to go, in order to suit the times & politics.

    This is seen at best when we examine cases where they logic their way through cases years apart to get opposing rulings, seemingly to suit the times & mood of the country - the school segregation cases of the '50's/'60's are a great example of this.
    The SC doesnt write the law, they only decide cases. Thus they cant define what is or isnt a tax, other than for the purpose of deciding a case.

  2. #102
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11,871

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    that isn't a logical argument at all. more so when the administration had been calling it a penalty for years prior even to the point of denouncing it was a tax.
    Fair enough perhaps in this instance - but if you look at their history, they've pulled-off some pretty amazing stuff.

    Just take a look at some of the legal acrobatics involving the Commerce Clause through the years!
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

  3. #103
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,342

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    Then you concede that the Supreme Court can craft legislation, that is what happened today. ACA language does not support this decision, political intention trumps what words mean.
    There have been lots of conversations about this case elsewhere, but the bottom line is the SC really had one question - did Congress intend for this result, and if they did, then they eliminate the subsidies for the states who didn't set up their own exchanges. If the SC determines that in context etc. that Congress clearly did NOT intend this result, i.e. it was a drafting or could have been an error, then the law says the SC should read the law in its entirety and defer to the interpretation of the law by the relevant regulatory bodies, which determined that all states qualified for subsidies.

    I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so the terms may be off, but that is the simple concept.

    And yes, Congressional (aka political) intent does matter - a string of court cases confirm it. And this is just a MAJOR part of the law. I didn't read all of Scalia's dissent - skimmed it - but I'm almost certain he can't point to a single minute of testimony by anyone in Congress in support of or in opposition to denying credits to states who don't establish exchanges. The reason is EVERYONE, including the states themselves, assumed that credits would be available on the Federal exhanges. Everyone. Until some eagle eye read the law and found this drafting.... oddity. It's just inconceivable that such a major provision was the subject of no debate and was intentionally written so vaguely that no one knew about it until many months after the bill was passed and signed.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,652

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    This is really disappointing.. I mean, I can read, and at worst I was suspecting that the SC would send it back to congress to fix, NOT interpret intent.. To me, that is not the role of the SCOTUS, and never has been. Sending it back for revision was the right call, unfortunately the robes got this one very wrong.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,320

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The irony here is striking. The majority is accused of legislating from the bench because they did not strike down a key provision of the ACA on a legal technicality due to an ambiguously worded phrase in a 900 page bill. To any reasonable individual, not blinded by partisanship, the three dissenters were the obvious judicial activists in this one.
    100% wrong. the intent of the bill was to force states to setup exchanges. those that didn't and relied on the federal government were not going to get subsidies.
    when they realized this the IRS re-wrote the bill (unconstitutional IRS doesn't have power) and began issuing tax subsidies to everyone.

    the majority got it wrong and Roberts is a hack that should be removed a this point. He was supposed to uphold the constitution and he has failed to do so 2 times in the name of politics.

    him and the rest of them should be arrested and removed from the bench for failure to do their job and uphold the constitution.

    no the 3 dissenters got it right.

    from Scalia who got it right.

    Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges…Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case.

    that is 100% correct. words mean nothing anymore.

    The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means.

    Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges…The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.

    correct the majority in his court rewrote the law unconstitutional in and of itself.

  6. #106
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,444
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    Quote Originally Posted by BrewerBob View Post
    The Democrats couldn't be more tone deaf if they had their eardrums incinerated with a hot poker.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Why confuse things with facts?

  7. #107
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    14,412

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    100% wrong. the intent of the bill was to force states to setup exchanges. those that didn't and relied on the federal government were not going to get subsidies.
    A solid majority on the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Their opinion counts. Yours doesn't. If they claimed the ACA meant that a guy named Ludin has to wipe the ass of every American Citizen at least once in his life, then guess what, that's the law.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,342

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Maybe they want to make their own mess. Why should such a divisive thing as the Democrats Obamacare become the responsibility of Republicans? Again, let them fix it themselves.

    It seems to me, if Republicans try to turn a sows ear into a silk purse, they will be blamed for the pig. So what's to gain?
    Healthcare is 17% of the economy, so surely part of their job is to "fix" that. Their campaign pledge was repeal and replace. If they don't want to fix the ACA, then propose their own plan. Or just repeal it and let millions with insurance today go back to being uninsured, etc.

  9. #109
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,806

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin
    it only dropped because you get a subsidy. if you have a good job and have a family and aren't single then well you get screwed.
    we taxpayers are paying for you to get your drop in premium.

    I have had nothing but major premium increases as my company has to comply with obamacare and they shove more of the cost onto me.
    I work and pay taxes--last year I paid ~$28k between income and payroll tax.

  10. #110
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11,871

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    The SC doesnt write the law, they only decide cases. Thus they cant define what is or isnt a tax, other than for the purpose of deciding a case.
    True.

    But they have the power of interpretation, thereby deciding the cases in question - and those cases have HUGE ramifications.

    And let's not forget the very basics: they solely get to chose (or not) the cases they pick-up! They have a lot of discretion in what they do, and once they rule, where do you appeal?

    These guys are powerful!
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

Page 11 of 154 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •