How will the Supreme Court rule on Obamacare exchanges?

[Adre]

The ACA in it's present form is not the ACA that Roberts so generously declared to be constitutional, its Obama's 40 plus unilateral amendments to the ACA that are in question, and most likely unconstitutional on their face.

To our credit we don't decide or judge anything based on what you deem "most likely unconstitutional."

 

[JohnnySavage]

Do you think it would be before the SCOTUS for consideration if everyone thought it was constitutional?

It's not before the USSC on a Constitutional challenge. Dummy.

 

[Adre]

Liberals silently endured Thurgood Marshall drooling onto the bench, but Thomas not asking questions, brings out their racist insinuations.

And what exactly is racist about pointing out truthfully that Thomas has not asked a question about a case being argued in his presence since 2006? I suggested he was uninterested and perhaps often not awake. Do you believe those to be unique to African Americans?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The ACA in it's present form is not the ACA that Roberts so generously declared to be constitutional, its Obama's 40 plus unilateral amendments to the ACA that are in question, and most likely unconstitutional on their face.

That's not true, you obese tub of goo.

It's the same legislation in front of the Court, because butthurt conservatives didn't get the judicial activism they craved the first go-around.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

Do you think it would be before the SCOTUS for consideration if everyone thought it was constitutional?

Do you think just because some believe it to be unconstitutional it just MAGICALLY makes it unconstitutional??

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not at all, up until Obama the federal government won 7 out of ten cases before the SCOTUS, but as of June of last year Obama has lost 12 cases, the vast majority of those his administration has argued before the SCOTUS. One could almost lay odds...

That the judicial system hates blacks? I'll take those odds.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Total lie, Jumbo Jowls. The whole present Obama case is centered on the desire that colored folks are being offered the same health insurance that white people have. This is patently unconstitutional.

Fixed your post, Jabba. No charge

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not at all, up until Obama the federal government won 7 out of ten cases before the SCOTUS, but as of June of last year Obama has lost 12 cases, the vast majority of those his administration has argued before the SCOTUS. One could almost lay odds...

Once again I hear "I don't actually have anything backing up my claim that ACA is unconstitutional....BUTT!!"

That about sum it up??

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not at all,

So then you can link the court ruling striking this shit down as unconstitutional yes??

If the court finds

Oh...so we are back to it not being unconstitutional yet...which is it vette?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

the king is dead, long live welfare

 

[RobDownSouth]

Not at all, the law clearly says who is will receive subsidies and who will not. The law says “an Exchange established by the State.” The question is, can the administration (IRS) unilaterally give tax subsidies to federal exchanges as well. The law as it is presently being interpreted by the Obama administration was not an issue before the court three years ago, this Obama amendment, hadn't been thought up yet. If the court finds the law must be applied as written, it will in fact be saying the IRS has no authority under statute, or the Constitution, to grant such subsidies.

Yep, Congress never intended to give subsidies to those enrolled in State exchanges, only federal ones.

That's what your Republican masters are telling you to spew anyway.

And Meat Mountain Vetty is good at following orders.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Yep, Congress never intended to give subsidies to those enrolled in State exchanges, only federal ones.

That's what your Republican masters are telling you to spew anyway.

And Meat Mountain Vetty is good at following orders.

Wow, you are a special kind of stupid fuck. carry on Retard

 

[MarcoD_Santana]

Supes will side with ACA. Even they (at least conservatives) obey their corporate overlords. ACA is good for the insurance companies.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not at all, the law clearly says who is will receive subsidies and who will not. The law says “an Exchange established by the State.” The question is, can the administration (IRS) unilaterally give tax subsidies to federal exchanges as well. The law as it is presently being interpreted by the Obama administration was not an issue before the court three years ago, this Obama amendment, hadn't been thought up yet. If the court finds the law must be applied as written, it will in fact be saying the IRS has no authority under statute, or the Constitution, to grant such subsidies.

On the other hand the ratification of the 14th Amendment was an illegal/unconstitutional coup against the States, and the Supremes approved it without comment. That is, the GOP Congress threw all the Southern States outta the union till there were enough votes to ratify. They let them back in the union when they needed enough electoral votes to elect Hayes president.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The Congress should amend the law and strike the “established by the State.” language.

Problem solved.

 

[Ramone45]

Not at all, the law clearly says who is will receive subsidies and who will not. The law says “an Exchange established by the State.” The question is, can the administration (IRS) unilaterally give tax subsidies to federal exchanges as well. The law as it is presently being interpreted by the Obama administration was not an issue before the court three years ago, this Obama amendment, hadn't been thought up yet. If the court finds the law must be applied as written, it will in fact be saying the IRS has no authority under statute, or the Constitution, to grant such subsidies.

I can't see how they can possibly decide otherwise. The language could not be more clear. It is not the Supreme Court's role to proofread and fix mistakes. Lawyers are very smart and very precise. They dot every "i" and cross every "t". I must admit though that the affordable care act is so poorly written, you'd think it was written by idiots.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I can't see how they can possibly decide otherwise. The language could not be more clear. It is not the Supreme Court's role to proofread and fix mistakes. Lawyers are very smart and very precise. They dot every "i" and cross every "t". I must admit though that the affordable care act is so poorly written, you'd think it was written by idiots.

If they fixed the 14th Amendment Negroes would immediately cease to be citizens as Dred Scott was the law before the 14th Amendment.

Maybe its time for a Constitutional Convention. Such a process is the right way to express the will of The People rather then the druthers of pols and the opinions of appointed lawyers.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Supes will side with ACA. Even they (at least conservatives) obey their corporate overlords. ACA is good for the insurance companies.

please, both sides are corrupt. get your head out of your ass and stop being part of the problem

 

[Sean Renaud]

Here's the snag snookums. You are the problem.

 

[MarcoD_Santana]

please, both sides are corrupt. get your head out of your ass and stop being part of the problem

To equate both sides is simply untrue.
Irespective of corruption, which in this country is minimal, GOP firmly stands against populist principles.
Marihuana legalization, (but alkee-hol is ok kids!) gay marriage,social security, access to affordable health insurance, interest on student loans for chrissakes, equal pay, even net fucking neutrality... On all these issues, the freeloading right wingers have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Until they need these services and pretend they supported them from the start.

Don't pretend for one second that both sides are equal.

Keystone XL for example would give a Canadian company Eminent Domain rights on American soil. How is that fucking patriotic?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Here's the snag snookums. You are the problem.

yes, you and your kind is the problem. too many of you on welfare due to being lazy