Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I'm guessing we heard pretty much the same gloom and doom following such "abuse of power" as "Brown v Board of Education" and "Roe v Wade" and I expect conservative's heads will explode if the Court rules in favor of gay marriage. Somehow I think the country will survive...maybe the Republicans can try impeachment again, that worked so well.

of course they did.
now, if you'll excuse me, i have to go find my umbrella. it seems the sky is falling.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Thanks for the laugh.

This is how you respond to joeydb, and yet somehow my O. M. G. reply to your not being familiar with the concept of separation of powers is inadequate?

Separation of powers, or checks and balances, were designed to prevent government from wielding uninhibited power. Progs, understandably, have never been fond of the concept which is why they are always claiming that the Constitution is a "living document" whose principles can be changed to suit their whims. In this instance, scotus has decided that it is its function is to make a law work, not because of how it was written, but in spite of how it was written, simply because they want it to work. They decided that in the case of the ACA, "[A] fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan," and since the ACA desires "to improve health insurance markets," if at all possible it should be taken to mean whatever one believes it means in order to make it work, despite of its troubled legislative history (as in relying on the public's ignorance). This is known as judicial activism, or legislating from the bench. It's not as if it's never happened before, but I expect that this example of it, in such sweeping legislation, means that we can expect to see more in the future.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

This is how you respond to joeydb, and yet somehow my O. M. G. reply to your not being familiar with the concept of separation of powers is inadequate?

Separation of powers, or checks and balances, were designed to prevent government from wielding uninhibited power. Progs, understandably, have never been fond of the concept which is why they are always claiming that the Constitution is a "living document" whose principles can be changed to suit their whims. In this instance, scotus has decided that it is its function is to make a law work, not because of how it was written, but in spite of how it was written, simply because they want it to work. They decided that in the case of the ACA, "[A] fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan," and since the ACA desires "to improve health insurance markets," if at all possible it should be taken to mean whatever one believes it means in order to make it work, despite of its troubled legislative history (as in relying on the public's ignorance). This is known as judicial activism, or legislating from the bench. It's not as if it's never happened before, but I expect that this example of it, in such sweeping legislation, means that we can expect to see more in the future.

again, i know how it works.
i hope you read the article i posted, explaining some of what the justices considered.
but you probably didn't.
again, not liking the ruling doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or that our system is broken.
when the scotus ruled on corporate free speech, and on hobby lobby, i disagreed with their decision. i didn't bemoan legislating from the bench.

[Danzig]

let's look at it this way:

who wrote the law, discussed the law, amended the law, voted on the law, passed the law?
congress.
who enacted the law, set up the mechanisms for the law? congress

who can change the law, repeal the law? congress.

what did scotus do? uphold the law. so, therefore, ignoring all that congress did, scotus is legislating from the bench?

hogwash

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, i know how it works.

I don't believe you do.

Originally Posted by Danzig

i hope you read the article i posted, explaining some of what the justices considered.
but you probably didn't.

Yes, it laid out the majority's decision well. If the legislature passes a law that we favor but is unconstitutional, well then by golly let's reinterpret it (in spite of how it was written) and make it constitutional.

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, not liking the ruling doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or that our system is broken.

You seem to be under the impression that my distaste for the scotus' ruling is that it didn't overturn the ACA, when my far and away larger disappointment is that judges are acting as unelected legislators. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you.

Originally Posted by Danzig

when the scotus ruled on corporate free speech, and on hobby lobby, i disagreed with their decision. i didn't bemoan legislating from the bench.

Perhaps that's because they didn't.

Now, I have a show to listen to.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

let's look at it this way:

who wrote the law, discussed the law, amended the law, voted on the law, passed the law?

Democrats.

Originally Posted by Danzig

who enacted the law, set up the mechanisms for the law?

Democrats.

Originally Posted by Danzig

who can change the law, repeal the law?

Republicans, if they can find a better way (and their balls).

Originally Posted by Danzig

what did scotus do?

Re-wrote the law.

[Danzig]

Based on what is aca unconstitutional? You've said it is, but what makes it so? Based on what should the scotus have tossed it? And scotus didn't rewrite a thing.

[Danzig]

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

[Pants II]

This is a great week for tyranny.

"I'm scared, lol repubs cry harder."

We're all gonna be crying sooner or later. Especially the plebs who trust their government and defend it to the max.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

I don't live here as do you, and just so you know, I may not be online again for days.

The ACA would have been unconstitutional had not the majority reinterpreted/rewritten the states' requirement. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Of course it was rewritten, first turning the individual mandate into a tax, then reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that "established by the state" means "established by the federal government," because had they not ruled in such a manner (as you just said) it would have been unconstitutional. Never mind that Gruber said that it specifically was written that way intending to force states into supporting scotuscare.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I don't live here as do you, and just so you know, I may not be online again for days.

The ACA would have been unconstitutional had not the majority reinterpreted/rewritten the states' requirement. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Of course it was rewritten, first turning the individual mandate into a tax, then reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that "established by the state" means "established by the federal government," because had they not ruled in such a manner (as you just said) it would have been unconstitutional. Never mind that Gruber said that it specifically was written that way intending to force states into supporting scotuscare.

oh, here we go...worrying about people posting often.
yeah, when time is slow at times i can get on here. and i love to visit the site when something has gone on that rankles some. hehe. it's hilarious.
anyway, you and pants and rudeboy can have your little conspiracy fan club and whine about me and GR.
i'll sit back and enjoy more people having equality. in the land of the free, where all are supposed to be equal, but still have to fight for it.

now this, this is fantastic:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Justice Kennedy

[Danzig]

You know, in 1836, a gag order was instituted in the House, barring all discussion of slavery. Wonder why those against getting health care to those without didn't try to pass a rule like that?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I don't live here as do you, and just so you know, I may not be online again for days.

The ACA would have been unconstitutional had not the majority reinterpreted/rewritten the states' requirement. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Of course it was rewritten, first turning the individual mandate into a tax, then reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that "established by the state" means "established by the federal government," because had they not ruled in such a manner (as you just said) it would have been unconstitutional. Never mind that Gruber said that it specifically was written that way intending to force states into supporting scotuscare.

This is incorrect. Nothing was rewritten. They didn't 'force' it on the states, the law was written and voted on by the states reps in congress. It can be repealed by them if they so choose.

[steve]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Laugh it up, this is still the "soft tyranny" phase. The more classic tyrannical stuff comes later.

sorta like lying to get us in a endless war with Iraq?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by steve

sorta like lying to get us in a endless war with Iraq?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by steve

sorta like lying to get us in a endless war with Iraq?

...Post of the month..

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, here we go...worrying about people posting often.
yeah, when time is slow at times i can get on here.

Okay, but perhaps you can understand how setting arbitrary time limits for responses is unrealistic for some of us:

Originally Posted by Danzig

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

By that standard, you've had 10 days to tell us which Republicans in the huffpo article "tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims," as the article put it. No matter. That was then. This is now. I read your article. Here's one for you.

The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Okay, but perhaps you can understand how setting arbitrary time limits for responses is unrealistic for some of us:



By that standard, you've had 10 days to tell us which Republicans in the huffpo article "tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims," as the article put it. No matter. That was then. This is now. I read your article. Here's one for you.

The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html

jindal and huckster definitely have turned this into a religious thing...as has the texas AG, cruz, etc.

as for the aca, it can be repealed. and an opinion piece is just that, the writers opinion. congrats, it matches your opinion. i'll spare you links to articles that don't hold that opinion.
not an ardent supporter, i think now and have always thought the aca isa convoluted mess. but it brought coverage to a lot more people, and is all they thought they could do for now. i'll keep waiting and hoping for universal health care.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

jindal and huckster definitely have turned this into a religious thing...as has the texas AG, cruz, etc.

I haven't seen Senator Cruz do that. Link?

Originally Posted by Danzig

as for the aca, it can be repealed. and an opinion piece is just that, the writers opinion. congrats, it matches your opinion.

As yours did for you, yes?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I haven't seen Senator Cruz do that. Link?




As yours did for you, yes?

i think the one slate article i posted gave the legal reasoning for them doing what they did....not sure it's an opinion piece. maybe it is.
i've disagreed with other rulings, unlike cruz, huck, jindal, etc. but unlike them, i don't see a reason to blow up the scotus.