They got it right, mush to the GOP's relief (not to mention Obama). As many conservatives have said, the politics of a victory would have been a disaster compared to the politics of a defeat.
Roberts quote was the key: if you read the law, it's clear congress intended for Obamacare to avoid the mess that an adverse ruling would create. Sometimes expediency DOES win out over literal interpretation. No one can think that congress intended the subsidies to only go to state excahneges, because the entire law makes no sense if that were the case.
I'm actually gaining new respect for the current court. After bungling rulings on campaign spending limits and eminent domain laws, they're on a roll with protecting government speech, illegal seizure of property and now health care. I wonder if now they'll get people in love get married...
I bought HUM in early 2012 when CAD was about par with USD. I missed the huge spike in HUM last month when it hit $220 but I am still sitting on a double plus the added 25% currency gain..............+125% in 3 years is pretty juicy.
The court ruled that the intent was the important thing, not the words. Just like they do for things like free speech, self incrimination and bearing arms. Basically, what the writers *meant* is more important than the exact verbiage they used.
This is important because language changes, and we don't want the law changing because the meanings of words change over time.
If it's right to interpret the Constitution in light of what the *Founders* intended, then it's right to interpret the ACA the way *Congress* intended.
And for those of you all up in arms about the fucking democrats and their commie "Obamacare" law, you should probably check out some legislation that Newt Gingrich and some other republicans proposed a few years ago.
LOL Newt INVENTED Obamacare. It was the Dems that rejected it, for no particular reason other than it was a Republican who first suggested a compromise between national healthcare and the current system. So when Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney dusted it off and instituted it in MA, it was a triumph of bipartisan cooperation to put the program above the politics.
It's ironic that people who benefit the most from it - poor white southerners - had been deluded into hating it the most. Now they are saying, "Well we hate Obama but it's nice to have insurance." This is why there are many Republicans who are breathing a sigh of relief behind closed doors. They know that had the court sided against Obamacare, it would have been a huge mess for not just poor white people, but the rich investors as well. As Farmerart pointed out (not that he's a Republican because I don't know): people with investments in medical companies made a nice chunk of change today.
I agree mikeya02. This particular issue needs more than just one man to give the law the teeth of moral certainty. A 6-3 ruling is compelling, especially when a 5-4 against was not out of the realm of possibility if they didn't think it through. Fortunately both the poor and the old white rich men won.
^^^^^^ that is as low as it gets. slandering a dead man who can no longer tell you to go fuck yourself
romneycare is bankrupt despite the $400 million annual subsidy from the other 49 states. bad legislation is bad legislation no matter who sponsors it and romneycare and obamacare are as bad as it gets
Ah Dr. Phil.. I love that your name is the same as a guy who has repeatedly advocated dangerous information to the general public couched in informed opinion. You are PERFECT!
give it a break about the "poor" already. the poor were already insured by medicaid. and under obamacare they are still insured by the exact same medicaid. no fucking change to them except for the irreparable damage done to the medical system
This decision has really fanned the merger fires among all the health insurers........Aetna, United, Cigna, Anthem, Humana. The company of whom I am a happy shareholder (HUM) will be one of the companies swallowed up in the merger frenzy.
I have made note many times before of just what a spectacular president Obama has been for stock market investors. Now I must also laud SCOTUS (or more accurately the 6 right-thinking justices) for the same accomplishment. Well done lady justices and gentlemen justices!
Though Justice Scalia (as usual on this decision) had his head up his ass I must credit him with being an hilarious writer.
If I were an American citizen I would be an independent. In my lifetime there have been both Republican and Democrat candidates for POTUS that would have received my vote; both winners and losers from each party.
WEEE-YAWWW!!! I knew I had to check in to see if heads over here at TUSCL were a-splodin' in the wake of King v. Burwell.
Not as extreme as I thought but it still had the entertaining comment from @mikeya that "12 Hours Ago • Thank God we have nine people to decide whats best for the country. It's gonna be a brave new world". Yep...a brave new world...because judicial review is, like, totally new. Totes McGotes. Nope, never heard of Marbury v. Madison!
Let's see just see how this "brave new world" works out. I, for one, shall celebrate by writing to the KFC corporate office suggesting a new set of commercials featuring the Juiceman. Commercial número uno -- the Juiceman sodomizes a stripper with a drumstick while the Colonel looks on and says "heh heh heh!"
Oooo...and DoctorMoron is still a postin' here! Defending Saint Ronny, hallowed be his name....
@ImTooStupidToEverBeADoctorPhil sez "^^^^^^ that is as low as it gets. slandering a dead man who can no longer tell you to go fuck yourself"
Well, that settles it! If you're going to be a dick 'bout things you deserve some punishment! Juiceman KFC commercial número dos will feature you in a Ronny Ray-gun mask getting a drumstick o' the Colonel's XXXtra KRIS-pay up your anus!
(Apologies to those having serious discussions about the fine points of strip clubbing, but sometimes the trolls that have never actually had sex with a real woman -- cough, DoctorPhil, cough -- have to be put in their place)
Poor DoctorPhil, still a-feared o' the brown eye! The not-so-good no-chance-he-could-ever-be-a-doctor is also projectin' just a bit...I wipe religiously, you're the one that lives in your own urine and feces, like your hero Ted Nugent!
And "anti-American" is rich from a moron that doesn't understand judicial review. Trust me, the discussed it during civics class while you were wrasslin' wit' your latent homosexual attraction to the teacher, Mr. McGee. You never had a chance with Mr. McGee 'cos your an ugly moron, but you really should just give in and find a male lover that is in your league.
Your problem with the brown eye comes from denial of yourself. I'm not going to lie to you. Any man that will fuck you, even for money, will want a blindfold 'cos you're sooooo ugly. But you need to acknowledge yo' gay side before you can ever be comfortable in your own skin. I want to help you do that!
Phil, this thread has some serious discussion; I think Farmerart's perspective is interesting: That the people who hate Obama the most (old white men) have also made the most money during his administration. That irony dovetails with my observation that the other grop that hates Obama the most - poor white southerners - also have the most to gain.
Then we get slurs and profanity as your contribution. Phil, just go away and grow up a little. Come back as a reasonable contributor.
@zipperhead. i never said anything about judicial review so whether i understand it or not is beyond your comprehension.
but your comments are very curious indeed. zipperhead don’t you remember? you don’t believe in the American form of government and want to do away with it. doesn’t that by definition make you anti-American?:
Jester: That's what I said when they eliminated campaign contribution limits, which is one of the worst decisions in my lifetime IMO. I said it had nothing to do with law; it was politics trumping policy.
I suppose when we lose, we cry "politics" and when we win, it's a victory for America. The truth is the justices do have personal prejudices, but every now and then they overcome them to make unexpected rulings because they feel the issue is too important to fuck with.
My issue isn't with this ruling. I have mixed feelings about this ruling. Logically it made sense and it was probably a good thing to happen. From a purely legal standpoint, I'm not so sure.
My main issue is with the fact that 6 or 7 of the justices are almost guaranteed to vote one way based along political lines. It's also unlikely that the court is going to become less polarized as time goes on.
Recent decisions have featured mixed ideologies which I applaud. When it's 5-4 with all 5 conservatives vs. all 4 liberals, I question if it's all just politics. I can do that with no legal background. The recent decisions call very deep legal and Constitutional issues to be considered, and the fact we have professionals consider them is comforting to me.
33 comments
Roberts quote was the key: if you read the law, it's clear congress intended for Obamacare to avoid the mess that an adverse ruling would create. Sometimes expediency DOES win out over literal interpretation. No one can think that congress intended the subsidies to only go to state excahneges, because the entire law makes no sense if that were the case.
I'm actually gaining new respect for the current court. After bungling rulings on campaign spending limits and eminent domain laws, they're on a roll with protecting government speech, illegal seizure of property and now health care. I wonder if now they'll get people in love get married...
Should I sell?
I bought HUM in early 2012 when CAD was about par with USD. I missed the huge spike in HUM last month when it hit $220 but I am still sitting on a double plus the added 25% currency gain..............+125% in 3 years is pretty juicy.
'The bird in the hand' thing.........ya know?
Usually the market overreacts to news both good and bad.
This is important because language changes, and we don't want the law changing because the meanings of words change over time.
If it's right to interpret the Constitution in light of what the *Founders* intended, then it's right to interpret the ACA the way *Congress* intended.
And for those of you all up in arms about the fucking democrats and their commie "Obamacare" law, you should probably check out some legislation that Newt Gingrich and some other republicans proposed a few years ago.
It's ironic that people who benefit the most from it - poor white southerners - had been deluded into hating it the most. Now they are saying, "Well we hate Obama but it's nice to have insurance." This is why there are many Republicans who are breathing a sigh of relief behind closed doors. They know that had the court sided against Obamacare, it would have been a huge mess for not just poor white people, but the rich investors as well. As Farmerart pointed out (not that he's a Republican because I don't know): people with investments in medical companies made a nice chunk of change today.
romneycare is bankrupt despite the $400 million annual subsidy from the other 49 states. bad legislation is bad legislation no matter who sponsors it and romneycare and obamacare are as bad as it gets
give it a break about the "poor" already. the poor were already insured by medicaid. and under obamacare they are still insured by the exact same medicaid. no fucking change to them except for the irreparable damage done to the medical system
I have made note many times before of just what a spectacular president Obama has been for stock market investors. Now I must also laud SCOTUS (or more accurately the 6 right-thinking justices) for the same accomplishment. Well done lady justices and gentlemen justices!
Though Justice Scalia (as usual on this decision) had his head up his ass I must credit him with being an hilarious writer.
If I were an American citizen I would be an independent. In my lifetime there have been both Republican and Democrat candidates for POTUS that would have received my vote; both winners and losers from each party.
Not as extreme as I thought but it still had the entertaining comment from @mikeya that "12 Hours Ago • Thank God we have nine people to decide whats best for the country. It's gonna be a brave new world". Yep...a brave new world...because judicial review is, like, totally new. Totes McGotes. Nope, never heard of Marbury v. Madison!
Let's see just see how this "brave new world" works out. I, for one, shall celebrate by writing to the KFC corporate office suggesting a new set of commercials featuring the Juiceman. Commercial número uno -- the Juiceman sodomizes a stripper with a drumstick while the Colonel looks on and says "heh heh heh!"
WEEE-YAWWW!!!
@ImTooStupidToEverBeADoctorPhil sez "^^^^^^ that is as low as it gets. slandering a dead man who can no longer tell you to go fuck yourself"
Well, that settles it! If you're going to be a dick 'bout things you deserve some punishment! Juiceman KFC commercial número dos will feature you in a Ronny Ray-gun mask getting a drumstick o' the Colonel's XXXtra KRIS-pay up your anus!
(Apologies to those having serious discussions about the fine points of strip clubbing, but sometimes the trolls that have never actually had sex with a real woman -- cough, DoctorPhil, cough -- have to be put in their place)
i see you are still obsessed with all things anal and fecal you anti-American faggot
Your problem with the brown eye comes from denial of yourself. I'm not going to lie to you. Any man that will fuck you, even for money, will want a blindfold 'cos you're sooooo ugly. But you need to acknowledge yo' gay side before you can ever be comfortable in your own skin. I want to help you do that!
TTFN
Then we get slurs and profanity as your contribution. Phil, just go away and grow up a little. Come back as a reasonable contributor.
but your comments are very curious indeed. zipperhead don’t you remember? you don’t believe in the American form of government and want to do away with it. doesn’t that by definition make you anti-American?:
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…
zipperhead said:
“I have to disagree with the comment that the US constitution was a stellar document, except possibly as an example of "democracy 1.0".”
“we're saddled with an anachronistic 18th century document”
I suppose when we lose, we cry "politics" and when we win, it's a victory for America. The truth is the justices do have personal prejudices, but every now and then they overcome them to make unexpected rulings because they feel the issue is too important to fuck with.
My main issue is with the fact that 6 or 7 of the justices are almost guaranteed to vote one way based along political lines. It's also unlikely that the court is going to become less polarized as time goes on.