Scalia Nails It

[dandh]

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” (referring to the SC's two errant rulings)

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”

Antonin Scalia - in dissent

 

[Huey Grey]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Why should we kick 6 million people off their healthcare simply because the Cons don't like Obama?

 

[22*43*51]

‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’

So, the Federal Government "self-identifies" as a State?

This Caitlyn Jenner mentality has gone way too far.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” (referring to the SC's two errant rulings)

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”

Antonin Scalia - in dissent

The US of A is not a state?

Who knew?

What is it, then? A marching band?

 

[22*43*51]

The US of A is not a state?

Who knew?

What is it, then? A marching band?

Hey. The same group of knot-heads determined a corporation is a person.

So at least they are consistent.

 

[Huey Grey]

The US of A is not a state?

Who knew?

What is it, then? A marching band?

Even if the United States is isn't a state, it still doesn't mean that 6 million should lose their coverage over spite.

 

[22*43*51]

Even if the United States is isn't a state, it still doesn't mean that 6 million should lose their coverage over spite.

That is the emotion behind this that has no place in the ruling of law.

Hell, me and Parser are even agreeing on something. That has to be a sign a legitimate wrong has been unleashed.

 

[dandh]

The US of A is not a state?

Who knew?

What is it, then? A marching band?

The ACA defined the word State for its purposes as one of the 50 states, so it was quite clear. Roberts acknowledged that, saying the plain definition argument was quite strong. When that happens, it's supposed to be over. However, six justices decided to legislate instead of make a ruling based on law, and now we have, as Scalia puts it, SCOTUSCare.

 

[Huey Grey]

That is the emotion behind this that has no place in the ruling of law.

Hell, me and Parser are even agreeing on something. That has to be a sign a legitimate wrong has been unleashed.

Emotion? How does emotion factor into this? 6 million would lose coverage and the entire exchange system would be in jeopardy of a death spiral causing huge rate hikes and a mad-dash scramble to find a fix which would consume all of Congress for months. That's not emotion. That's simply trying to ward off disaster.

 

[Huey Grey]

The ACA defined the word State for its purposes as one of the 50 states, so it was quite clear. Roberts acknowledged that, saying the plain definition argument was quite strong. When that happens, it's supposed to be over. However, six justices decided to legislate instead of make a ruling based on law, and now we have, as Scalia puts it, SCOTUSCare.

Hey, there's little doubt that this is exactly what happened. But the Court based that decision on the better good. Staying true to the exact letter of the law, as obscure as that letter is, does you little good if you destroy the healthcare of millions and create an upheaval of negative consequences, that would be felt for years, in its wake.

 

[BABiscuit]

Sounds like the states just subcontracted the work. Nothing wrong with that. I get a tax abatement for building a new home. My county doesn't care if I physically built it or if somebody built it for me.

 

[22*43*51]

Emotion? How does emotion factor into this? 6 million would lose coverage and the entire exchange system would be in jeopardy of a death spiral causing huge rate hikes and a mad-dash scramble to find a fix which would consume all of Congress for months. That's not emotion. That's simply trying to ward off disaster.

All of those things are true.

Just understand that you have to live with this ruling as it impacts others in the future. I'm not talking about the ACA. I am talking about how the SCOTUS chose to rule on it.

I don't think you do understand that right now. But, at some point you will.

 

[pablow]

Emotion? How does emotion factor into this? 6 million would lose coverage and the entire exchange system would be in jeopardy of a death spiral causing huge rate hikes and a mad-dash scramble to find a fix which would consume all of Congress for months. That's not emotion. That's simply trying to ward off disaster.

And there is Supreme Court precedent for warding off disaster - Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

 

[22*43*51]

Sounds like the states just subcontracted the work. Nothing wrong with that. I get a tax abatement for building a new home. My county doesn't care if I physically built it or if somebody built it for me.

That an interesting interpretation. Interesting and wildly off the reservation. You might just be a great fit for the high court.

Your Honor...

 

[codflyer]

Hey, there's little doubt that this is exactly what happened. But the Court based that decision on the better good. Staying true to the exact letter of the law, as obscure as that letter is, does you little good if you destroy the healthcare of millions and create an upheaval of negative consequences, that would be felt for years, in its wake.

Nations that abandon the rule of law for the "greater good" do so at their own peril.

 

[Huey Grey]

All of those things are true.

Just understand that you have to live with this ruling as it impacts others in the future. I'm not talking about the ACA. I am talking about how the SCOTUS chose to rule on it.

I don't think you do understand that right now. But, at some point you will.

Of course I understand that the Court didn't follow the exact letter of the law. It very openly didn't. And of course I understand that this could create a slippery slope where future courts can ignore other laws, not based on what that law says, but what it's intended to do. But I think that's a tradeoff we just have to accept. Why should we suffer a great healthcare disaster over a few lines that the writers never thought could destroy the entire system? Not only would that be shooting ourselves in the foot, it also opposes the intent of the law which was to help get coverage to more people, not take that coverage away.

I freely admit that the Court could abuse this precedent in the future. But we'll just have to trust that the Court won't. And even if they did abuse it, would it wreak more havoc than we would have suffered if Obamacare imploded?

 

[Huey Grey]

Nations that abandon the rule of law for the "greater good" do so at their own peril.

How? Laws are changed all the time. Hundreds of new federal laws are passed every year. And this was just a small part of one of those laws. We've had a long history of ignoring the law for the greater good. And I for one am proud of that fact.

 

[22*43*51]

But we'll just have to trust that the Court won't. And even if they did abuse it, would it wreak more havoc than we would have suffered if Obamacare imploded?

Trust them like we did with Citizen's United?

Can the ruling wreak more havoc than if Obamacare imploded? I can imagine a lot of Havoc. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Huey Grey]

Trust them like we did with Citizen's United?

Can the ruling wreak more havoc that if Obamacare imploded? I can imagine a lot of Havoc. We'll have to wait and see.

Well, I agree with on that part. We'll have to wait to see if this was the right decision.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Why should we kick 6 million people off their healthcare simply because the Cons don't like Obama?

That's not the point.

The point is that the SCOTUS should interpret laws as written, not by what they think should've been written.

By your logic, all the court did was keep 6 million people covered by insurance. Nothing at all to do with legal reasoning.

Looks like we now have 3 political branches of government.

 

[86Hawkeye]

How? Laws are changed all the time. Hundreds of new federal laws are passed every year. And this was just a small part of one of those laws. We've had a long history of ignoring the law for the greater good. And I for one am proud of that fact.

So you're agreeing that the SCOTUS just ignored the law for political expediency, and you're proud of it.

Good for you!

 

[HallofFame]

 

[Huey Grey]

So you're agreeing that the SCOTUS just ignored the law for political expediency, and you're proud of it.

Good for you!

Political expediency? This ruling had far less to do with politics and far more to do with the fact that our entire healthcare system would be in free fall if it was shot down.

 

[Huey Grey]

That's not the point.

The point is that the SCOTUS should interpret laws as written, not by what they think should've been written.

By your logic, all the court did was keep 6 million people covered by insurance. Nothing at all to do with legal reasoning.

Looks like we now have 3 political branches of government.

How is this at all a political decision?

 

[jscott78]

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” (referring to the SC's two errant rulings)

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”

Antonin Scalia - in dissent

No one pouts like Scalia. No one.

 

[Arbitr8]

Sad day for America our Supreme Court votes in a make believe trial slaps each other on the back with a smile says suppers waiting at home got to get to it.

 

[Huey Grey]

Sad day for America our Supreme Court votes in a make believe trial slaps each other on the back with a smile says suppers waiting at home got to get to it.

Yeah. Saving lives is always a sad day.

 

[lucas80]

Roberts said in his writing that it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to make legislation. Isn't that nailing it in the Conservative world?

 

[Chewback]

That's not the point.

The point is that the SCOTUS should interpret laws as written, not by what they think should've been written.

By your logic, all the court did was keep 6 million people covered by insurance. Nothing at all to do with legal reasoning.

Looks like we now have 3 political branches of government.

SCOTUS often interprets the Constitution as they think it should've been written. What's the diff?

 

[TexMichFan]

Trust them like we did with Citizen's United?

Can the ruling wreak more havoc than if Obamacare imploded? I can imagine a lot of Havoc. We'll have to wait and see.

It's not if this ruling could be used in a case of greater havoc than Obamacare imploding but in the precedent that SCOTUS just wrote for itself to interpret the intent of congress in all laws that come before it. We now have the dual criteria of is the law constitutional as written or can the justices divine the intent and rule on it. Lots of little havocs can come from this.

 

[Chewback]

No one pouts like Scalia. No one.

Whenever Scalia is butthurt I feel kind of cheery.

 

[strummingram]

How? Laws are changed all the time. Hundreds of new federal laws are passed every year. And this was just a small part of one of those laws. We've had a long history of ignoring the law for the greater good. And I for one am proud of that fact.

You're like a bottle of nitro glycerin on a mantle in a house that's built on a fault line,

 

[Huey Grey]

Whenever Scalia is butthurt I feel kind of cheery.

Speaking of this, it does appear that it's Scalia who is the one taking this personally and using it as a political platform to express his displeasure for all thing Obama.

 

[Huey Grey]

You're like a bottle of nitro glycerin on a mantle in a house that's built on a fault line,

What an odd response. Very few laws are unchanging. We're constantly updating them. So why is this very small part of the ACA any different? The subsidy section isn't even in line with the goals or intent of Obamacare. By all accounts, it seems to be a mistake. So why is it such a big deal if it's ignored?

 

[Arbitr8]

Yeah. Saving lives is always a sad day.

There is no proof of any lives being saved, everyone had access to medical care way before this mess of a healthcare law.

 

[Huey Grey]

There is no proof of any lives being saved, everyone had access to medical care way before this mess of a healthcare law.

You serious? The ER isn't even close to what these people would have lost. Where's the preventative care? Where's the treatment for pre-existing conditions? Where's the treatment for things that aren't emergency related? Lives would have undoubtedly been lost.

 

[86Hawkeye]

What an odd response. Very few laws are unchanging. We're constantly updating them. So why is this very small part of the ACA any different? The subsidy section isn't even in line with the goals or intent of Obamacare. By all accounts, it seems to be a mistake. So why is it such a big deal if it's ignored?

Wow.

 

[joelbc1]

Anton Scalia is to minority SC opinions as Sergio Garcia is to tweeting about a bad day on the golf course. For both of them, it is always someone else's fault.

 

[86Hawkeye]

It's not if this ruling could be used in a case of greater havoc than Obamacare imploding but in the precedent that SCOTUS just wrote for itself to interpret the intent of congress in all laws that come before it. We now have the dual criteria of is the law constitutional as written or can the justices divine the intent and rule on it. Lots of little havocs can come from this.

Exactly.

 

[Arbitr8]

You serious? The ER isn't even close to what these people would have lost. Where's the preventative care? Where's the treatment for pre-existing conditions? Where's the treatment for things that aren't emergency related? Lives would have undoubtedly been lost.

Translation = He has no proof to back up his claims.