Advertisement

SCOTUS: ARE WE A FREE NATION ANY LONGER?

Advertisement

Screen-Shot-2015-06-25-at-10.45.22-AM-770x418

We are no longer a free nation. What’s the good of having a Supreme Court? They’re meaningless now. I’m so sickened and angry right now with Chief Justice Robers right now I can’t see straight…I’m burning with rage! Our country has become socialist under Dear Leader, after all, he promised to transforming America and that’s just what he’s done. Of course he’s had help doing so with his socialist/commie friends. Total corruption now rules!

Anyway, enough from me, here are the main reports below:

In another bizarre ruling in which it seems they rewrote the law to save it, the Supreme Court upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under Obamacare on Thursday.

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.

Instead, the majority ruled that federal subsidies were available on state Obamacare exchanges, even though the text of the so-called Affordable Care Act said that such subsidies were only available on “State” exchanges.

The ruling was reminiscent of Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling in 2012, when he infamously interpreted a “penalty” as a tax to uphold Obamacare’s constitutionality. This time, the court held that the “context” of the word “State” mattered more than the plain meaning.

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.

Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.

In the King v Burwell case, the law’s opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for their insurance premiums are ineligible for their federal tax credits because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

In the challengers’ view, the phrase “established by the state” demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only available to people in states that set up their own exchanges. Those words cannot refer to exchanges established by the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees healthcare.gov, the opponents argued.

Screen-Shot-2015-06-25-at-11.31.42-AM-e1435246341709

In the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia pulled no punches.

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,’” he wrote.

“Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

If a law was badly formulated, that was not the Court’s problem, he argued. It was up to Congress to rescue the subsidies for Obamacare, not the Justices. And if people did not like it, tough: that was why the Justices were meant to serve life terms. They were meant to be above politics.

He concluded:

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years….And the cases 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.”

Meanwhile, several Republican lawmakers have issued press releases or tweeted their intent to pursue the repeal of Obamacare. After their approval of fast-track of Obamatrade this week, it’s becoming very difficult to take any of our elected officials at their word.

Here’s a report below:

Btw…after Scalia read some of his retort about this deciaion and mentioned the word SCOTUSSCARE…John Roberts laughed!

What are your opinions about this issue?

Fire Away – Inquiring Minds Want to Know!

Advertisement

Related Posts