Why are you acting like what this did was out of bounds? It clearly isn't. 6-3 is a statement. The Court had every authority to do this. And let's not kid ourselves, this ruling was indeed interpreting. They interpreted that the subsidy section was in odds of the rest of the law and ruled that this section was an oversight on the part of the law's drafters that was never intended to have the possible effects it could have.
Six people did not make a new law. Six people simply upheld the original intent of the old law. You may not like it that this is exactly what happened, but it is what happened. The subsidy section was ruled to be at odds with the original intent of the existing law, so the court ruled that it wasn't applicable.
I think you are. Clearly, you didn't read the justification behind the decision. You cannot simply make up what the Court said.
Don't be so dense. You know that is not how it works. Nobody sends out a memo saying "do this or else..." in explicit language. The coercing happens in the way the laws are constructed. This isn't some unique thing to the ACA...it happens all the time in many, many, many laws. And Jonathan Gruber actually did come right out address this "blackmail" in plain language at one point:
I agree with that. I think SCOFFLA should have been overturned on a couple of other grounds. The equal protection thing was a reach, and I don't care what the court said about it applying to this case only, that's bullshit.
I think the evidence indicates that among those members of Congress who were even aware of it, most realized that the intent was as Gruber described.
It's not blackmail (that was your word). It's incentive (or strong arming depending on your perspective) . And it is how a LOT of things get done, probably the majority. And Gruber had WAY more to do with the drafting of this law than congress did. They just rubber-stamped it without even reading it. If anybody has a clear vision of what the various provisions of the law meant, it was a guy like Gruber (And, btw, the above comment was made BEFORE this became an issue and a court challenge).
The right thinks they have a gotcha on this Gruber nonsense. Most of them doesn't even know what Gruber said and couldn't make a sensible argument why it matters even if it did have some relevance to the discussion.
------------------------------
I qualified my statement by limiting it to those members of Congress who were aware of it. Right off the bat that eliminates about 400 or so in the House.
no, his opinion was correct. not all opinions are wrong, when they lose out to devil worship freaks in the black robes of death... actually, that makes them righteous to lose out to that!!
That's not proof his dissent was wrong. It just proves that six justices valued political expediency over the correct interpretation of the law. Think Plessy versus Ferguson. That was never the correct ruling, either.
Well, I quoted him above, bolded the really direct part, linked to more context, and provided a further link that clearly establishes just how central of a figure he was to the drafting of the legislation. Evade all you want with the childish nonsense.
Yeah, no kidding. If a majority of justices determined what was actually correct, you are going to have a tough time explaining a whole bunch of past decisions. As bad as this decision was, it is not even an honorable mention as far as worst decisions of the court go.
First, I said "most" not "all." You may be wrong, but you at least did due diligence.
I would still hold that Gruber was more knowledgeable of the contents and intent of the ACA than any two hundred legislators put together, so in actuality, I find his description of intent FAR more convincing than any congressional testimony (that and it fits in perfectly with the way dozens, if not hundreds, of other major laws like this are constructed). Democrats in congress and the administration has been willing to lie and distort at every turn about this law, their testimony in this case is no different. But the damnation of the decision doesn't even require Gruber, he is just icing on the cake. By every standard and precedent, the majority in this decision broke for political expediency. Scalia's dissent is a complete take down of the decision. He utterly destroys every point the majority attempted to use as justification. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Roberts can just smirk and the reputation of this supreme court can burn a little more.
The bottom line is that these challenges were brought NOT because the plaintiffs actually thought that's what the law intended and NOT because they thought they were doing good for the American people but simply because it was yet another way to try to defeat Obamcare after they had lost the democratic vote.
Parser, you are both right and wrong. The plaintiffs wanted to overturn Obamacare, yes, but they wanted to overturn it because they think Obamacare is bad for the American people.
Clearly the plaintiff brought the suit because they wanted to hasten the demise of Obamacare. Call it a technicality if you want, really it was just capitalizing on a massive misjudgement by the crafters of the law. The plaintiff had them legally dead to rights, cornered by their own attempt to corner the States...but the court (over)stepped in to bail them out. It is what it is.
Popularity alone - especially as it is often transient and influenced by misleading propaganda - isn't the ONLY factor. It IS a factor, of course, but both sides should be wary of arguing that it should always be the deciding factor.
You sound like a bitter, angry fellow. Why do you feel the need call him names just because he's expressing a well-reasoned opinion?
