SCOTUS rules: ACA subsidies apply to ALL states

[Bowfinger]

Just announced, SCOTUS rules in favor of Obama administration that the ACA subsidies apply even to states using the federal exchange. I don't have a link yet. Reportedly a 6-3 decision.

Here's one link. I'm sure there will be dozens within the next hour or two: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/index.html

 

[K1052]

Scalia's dissent is going to be 19 different shades of butthurt, I can see it now.

 

[JEDI]

damn.. u beat me to the post.

but yeah!!!!!!!!!
obamacare is here to stay.

poor stupid repubs! hahaha

 

[Mxylplyx]

That collective whoosh you hear is almost all Republicans in Washington exhaling at once. Dismantling Obamacare is nothing more than baseless rhetoric they throw at their simple minded constituents. I bet most were terrified at the prospect of actually having to live up to their empty campaign promises, especially after the real human costs were tabulated in the media.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Oh do I want to wade into the cesspool that is FR and see the tears roll.....

 

[Blackjack200]

Wow, I didn't expect this decision until next week.

 

[emperus]

This was a stupid case to begin with that should have never been granted cert. The real story is the 3 Justices that voted against it.

 

[JockoJohnson]

That collective whoosh you hear is almost all Republicans in Washington exhaling at once. Dismantling Obamacare is nothing more than baseless rhetoric they throw at their simple minded constituents. I bet most were terrified at the prospect of actually having to live up to their empty campaign promises, especially after the real human costs were tabulated in the media.

^This in a nutshell. The pandering of the Repubs to the stupid base was pathetic. Those 50+ votes to repeal the ACA was to just be able to give them the ability to tell their constituents that they voted against it. I don't think they ever intended to actually go through with it nor do I think they could anyway. Hopefully now this topic will be put behind us. I just don't count on it.

 

[HomerJS]

What I never got about this suit plaintiff said since my state didn't setup exchange people in my state shouldn't get federal subsidies.

Plaintiff doesn't seem to be aggrieved party. Isn't that required for a suit to proceed?

 

[cliftonite]

Oh do I want to wade into the cesspool that is FR and see the tears roll.....

FR?

 

[Jaskalas]

Ultimately the law is what the SCOTUS says it is... and now, apparently, the words of the law may now be directly violated.

You could write a law "President shall not go to war with Iran" and the SCOTUS could overwrite that by saying "well, they really wanted to declare war... honest!"

 

[Mxylplyx]

This was a stupid case to begin with that should have never been granted cert. The real story is the 3 Justices that voted against it.

Has Clarence Thomas EVER voted in a manner inconsistent with the wishes of the far right?

 

[emperus]

Ultimately the law is what the SCOTUS says it is... and now, apparently, the words of the law may now be directly violated.

You could write a law "President shall not go to war with Iran" and the SCOTUS could overwrite that by saying "well, they really wanted to declare war... honest!"

Actually, that's not what they said. But, I'm sure you like your interpretation better.

 

[CitizenKain]

FR?

Free Republic, one of the crazier bastions of rightwing demagoguery. They've purged their saner members over the years and right now its purestrain crazy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

FR?

Free Republic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

 

[fskimospy]

If I remember right my guess was 6-3. This isn't a surprising ruling at all and should have been unanimous. The case was always completely stupid.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Has Clarence Thomas EVER voted in a manner inconsistent with the wishes of the far right?

Myopic you are. lol

 

[senseamp]

Congrats, red state people. Congrats Republican politicians, you can now go back to voting to repeal without having to come up with any policies of your own.

 

[Bowfinger]

Congrats, red state people. Congrats Republican politicians, you can now go back to voting to repeal without having to come up with any policies of your own.

Indeed. In an alternate universe, where SCOTUS ruled the other way, it would be fascinating to watch the GOP panic, "Oh shit! They gave us exactly what we said we wanted." Hilarity ensues.

 

[Sonikku]

damn.. u beat me to the post.

but yeah!!!!!!!!!
obamacare is here to stay.

Until next year when they find another line/sentence to challenge. This is going to be the next confederate flag issue 150 years later.

 

[Brainonska511]

Ultimately the law is what the SCOTUS says it is... and now, apparently, the words of the law may now be directly violated.

You could write a law "President shall not go to war with Iran" and the SCOTUS could overwrite that by saying "well, they really wanted to declare war... honest!"

 

[Jaskalas]

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

Both intent and letter of the law were violated.

 

[emperus]

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

Both intent and letter of the law were violated.

That is such a myopic reading of the law where you isolate one phrase and act like it isn't prefaced or followed by more phrases. You should probably read Justice Roberts majority opinion.

 

[Brainonska511]

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

Both intent and letter of the law were violated.

Scalia is a blowhard who will say whatever fits his tiny, twisted world view.

Just look at his reasoning in the VRA case versus the DOMA case:

 

[brycejones]

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

Both intent and letter of the law were violated.

In your made up land. Point to any drafter of this law who said that was the intent.