Never Forget - Who you vote for counts. If you don't want a President who sees you as irredeemable and deplorable, the choice is clear.
The only reason why this case exists is because a libertarian think-tank, backed by the Koch brothers and other conservatives, pored over the statute with the goal of finding something - anything - to challenge in the courts, no matter how tiny or frivolous.
A Cynical Challenge to the A.C.A. - The New Yorker
lolof course the SCOTUS is just covering their rear end because the got the first decision on obamacare wrong as well. Roberts is trying to protect himself and instead of
standing up for the constitution they continue to hand more and more power over to the government.
Sorry, no, not even close.
This case did not in any way rule on whether the ACA or the subsidies were constitutional; that issue was settled years ago.
This case was very specifically about what mechanisms the court uses to determine the meaning of a statute. What they found was that the single use of the phrase "exchanges established by the State" was nowhere near as clear and decisive as the opponents claimed. Roberts has no obligation whatsoever to rule in favor of the federal government this time, because this case is substantially different than the past cases.
But hey, don't let details like the nature of constitutional law, or the judicial philosophies of the justices, or the nature of the case itself stop you from a good rant....
And these guys are pros at using logical argument to get wherever they'd like to go; reference Justice Roberts declaring ObamaCare a tax to keep it alive!
"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown