ADVERTISEMENT

Scalia Nails It

Again, no. That wasn't the justification for the ruling. The argument was that Obamacare was intended to get insurance in the hands of more people, but that this single part of the law was in opposition of that overall goal. So they decided that this very small part was in error instead of the entire law.


So there were 6 people who made a new law. That is exactly what you are saying and I cannot believe that you have that much trust in 6 people to make the law. We know what the law was intended to do and they needed to say this is what is says so those folks don't get subsidies and then it goes back to the legislature and they fix the law.

You see Huey, the legislative branch makes the laws. They screwed it up, they needed to fix it.
 
Again, no. That wasn't the justification for the ruling. The argument was that Obamacare was intended to get insurance in the hands of more people, but that this single part of the law was in opposition of that overall goal. So they decided that this very small part was in error instead of the entire law.
You are digging your hole ever deeper, Huey.
 
So they updated like you said LOL

You are just burying yourself man. They interpret the federal constitutional law. That is what they are supposed to do anyway. They don't interpret what the law means.
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.
 
So there were 6 people who made a new law. That is exactly what you are saying and I cannot believe that you have that much trust in 6 people to make the law. We know what the law was intended to do and they needed to say this is what is says so those folks don't get subsidies and then it goes back to the legislature and they fix the law.

You see Huey, the legislative branch makes the laws. They screwed it up, they needed to fix it.
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.
 
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.

EXACTLY they changed the law. It is not their job to make law. The court was way out of bounds. Just because they did it doesn't make it right.
 
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.

No Huey they changed it. The language was clear.

And how do you know the intent? They set up a national exchange. That isn't even addressed in the law.

And neither is delays. When a republican gets elected and laws are just willy nilly changed remember this day.
 
Bush v. Gore?

Exactly. We are going to create an interpretation of the equal protection clause that we have repeatedly rejected for years. Next, we are going to specifically apply it to Bush v. Gore. Then, we are going to limit this interpretation of the equal protection clause to only Bush v. Gore and say it shouldn't be cited as authority in the future. Finally, we are going to release the opinion as a per curiam ruling so that none of the majority has to acknowledge writing it.
 
So when - exactly - did this blackmail take place? Is there a shred of evidence that any state was EVER told, "If you don't set up your own exchange, you won't get subsidies"? Is there any evidence - a sliver - of any state authority going public with this scheme? See...here's your problem - you make this claim for what you say the govt intended but there's not a single scrap of evidence that this path was ever pursued. Not one memo to indicate that even one state was told, "Play ball or no subsidies for you". Not a single incensed state official complaining about the fed's bullying threats. How could that be? When the feds threaten to withhold funding for infrastructure...well...they kinda make sure everybody knows about it. That's the only way that kind of threat works, you know. Yet...not a peep from ANYONE about this strong-arm tactic. And you don't find that at all odd?

You're left with a law that - according to idiots - contained a double secret probation that was never enforced or even threatened. Kinda puts the lie to that whole mythology you just created. Don't be an idiot.
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:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

And as much as ACA supporters like to marginalize him, he was one of the absolutely central figures in the crafting of the law and actually would know what the intent was of things like this. Any mythology is being created totally by people like you who either don't know what they are talking about, or are just desperate to whitewash the dirt, hypocrisy, and corruption behind this latest court "victory".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
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.

Well...yeah...that's EXACTLY how it works. If it's not explicit in the law then the feds make it well known that funding depends on certain actions. What's the point of blackmail if you don't let the other party know they're being blackmailed? I realize it's kind of a subtle point but it's an important one.

Soooooo....when did the feds communicate their nefarious plan to the states? And why didn't states that refused to set up their own exchanges call the govt out publicly for the "blackmail? Where's that tiniest shred of evidence that this was the govt's plan?

BTW, what Gruber thought is immaterial. What did Congress believe when they passed it and when did they let states in on the plan? Answer the question, please.
 
Exactly. We are going to create an interpretation of the equal protection clause that we have repeatedly rejected for years. Next, we are going to specifically apply it to Bush v. Gore. Then, we are going to limit this interpretation of the equal protection clause to only Bush v. Gore and say it shouldn't be cited as authority in the future. Finally, we are going to release the opinion as a per curiam ruling so that none of the majority has to acknowledge writing it.
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.

And as I've said before, once the 7-2 decision ensured Bush was the winner, I think the 5-4 decision to stop things might have saved a few more days of trauma, but that isn't the court's job, either. Should have let it play out. And probably more important, people would remember that the definitive ruling was 7-2, not 5-4.
 
Well...yeah...that's EXACTLY how it works. If it's not explicit in the law then the feds make it well known that funding depends on certain actions. What's the point of blackmail if you don't let the other party know they're being blackmailed? I realize it's kind of a subtle point but it's an important one.

Soooooo....when did the feds communicate their nefarious plan to the states? And why didn't states that refused to set up their own exchanges call the govt out publicly for the "blackmail? Where's that tiniest shred of evidence that this was the govt's plan?

BTW, what Gruber thought is immaterial. What did Congress believe when they passed it and when did they let states in on the plan? Answer the question, please.
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.
 
Well...yeah...that's EXACTLY how it works. If it's not explicit in the law then the feds make it well known that funding depends on certain actions. What's the point of blackmail if you don't let the other party know they're being blackmailed? I realize it's kind of a subtle point but it's an important one.

Soooooo....when did the feds communicate their nefarious plan to the states? And why didn't states that refused to set up their own exchanges call the govt out publicly for the "blackmail? Where's that tiniest shred of evidence that this was the govt's plan?

BTW, what Gruber thought is immaterial. What did Congress believe when they passed it and when did they let states in on the plan? Answer the question, please.
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).

You don't have to act this obtuse. I know you are a smart guy. I am not even that worked up about the decision. It was a terrible one, but it is more like just putting another bullet in a corpse at this point. The real travesty was the 2012 decision. In regard to this decision, I am just calling a spade a spade as I see it. I don't know why you are so defensive about it...guilty conscience? Just enjoy the victory and rah-rah for your team some more. There is nothing somebody like me can do to alter the judgement at this point, even if I am right (and I think, deep down, you know that I am).
 
BTW, what Gruber thought is immaterial. What did Congress believe when they passed it and when did they let states in on the plan? Answer the question, please.
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 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.

The fourth circuit opinion contains extensive review of the congressional record and has numerous instances of both views. Thus the finding of ambiguity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenneth Griffin
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.
------------------------------
I got a huge enough rate hike thanks to Obamacare. It caused my premium to double.
 
The fourth circuit opinion contains extensive review of the congressional record and has numerous instances of both views. Thus the finding of ambiguity.
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.
 
“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

He wrote in dissent. One of 3 losing votes. That means 6 Supreme Court Justices voted yes. 6 Justices didn't agree with him, so, his opinion, as written, was wrong.
 
He wrote in dissent. One of 3 losing votes. That means 6 Supreme Court Justices voted yes. 6 Justices didn't agree with him, so, his opinion, as written, was wrong.
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!!
 
so, can I get health insurance if my name was Kaitlin jenner and I married a dude under the confedearate flag and the dude was a citizen of mexico? can me and him get subsidies?
 
He wrote in dissent. One of 3 losing votes. That means 6 Supreme Court Justices voted yes. 6 Justices didn't agree with him, so, his opinion, as written, was wrong.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

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.
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.
 
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.
First, I said "most" not "all." You may be wrong, but you at least did due diligence.

Second, as you pointed out, Gruber was ONE of those who worked on ACA. So his view is worth reporting, but it doesn't mean that was the view of all - or the intent of Congress.

Some of you on the right are treating Gruber as though he was Madison or Moses. Certainly his view carries more weight than many, but it isn't dispositive. At least SCOTUS didn't think so.
 
First, I said "most" not "all." You may be wrong, but you at least did due diligence.

Second, as you pointed out, Gruber was ONE of those who worked on ACA. So his view is worth reporting, but it doesn't mean that was the view of all - or the intent of Congress.

Some of you on the right are treating Gruber as though he was Madison or Moses. Certainly his view carries more weight than many, but it isn't dispositive. At least SCOTUS didn't think so.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dandh
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.

People are starting to like Obamacare. 2016 is approaching and the GOP is the party that gets overwhelmingly identified with fear-mongering about Obamacare - fear-mongering that is proving more and more to have been lies.

The question becomes: now that they haven't been able to make Obamacare fail, what will they do next?

Will we ever get a serious GOP healthcare bill? And if so, will they be able to sell it? They probably have the votes to put a bill on Obama's desk if they can bring themselves to be reasonable.
 
This thread saddens me. Seriously. Unfortunately the country is being increasingly populated by people like Huey who are so dangerously short sighted and completely unaware of its danger. Then we have the children of the 60s and 70s that are absolutely aware of the danger, but simply don't care due to the fact that the outcome favors their particular political craving.

We are f--ked.

PS- Huey, you do realize that a very small part of the law has actually been implemented right? You realize that it has been Obama who has been placing extension after extension on the heart of the law because he knows that its implementation will have a devastating effect on his party's ability to win elections, correct?

Hopefully this opens the door to full implementation so those who want this bill so badly can reap what they have sown.
 
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.

People are starting to like Obamacare. 2016 is approaching and the GOP is the party that gets overwhelmingly identified with fear-mongering about Obamacare - fear-mongering that is proving more and more to have been lies.

The question becomes: now that they haven't been able to make Obamacare fail, what will they do next?

Will we ever get a serious GOP healthcare bill? And if so, will they be able to sell it? They probably have the votes to put a bill on Obama's desk if they can bring themselves to be reasonable.

The people who wrote the law did intend it to work this way, per Gruber who closely advised them. Regardless, the reason a lawsuit is brought is not a predictor of how a court should rule. If it were, then our courts would basically be another legislative branch, doing what they see as being popular, fair, or whatever. That's not, nor should it ever be, the court's role.
 
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.

People are starting to like Obamacare. 2016 is approaching and the GOP is the party that gets overwhelmingly identified with fear-mongering about Obamacare - fear-mongering that is proving more and more to have been lies.

The question becomes: now that they haven't been able to make Obamacare fail, what will they do next?

Will we ever get a serious GOP healthcare bill? And if so, will they be able to sell it? They probably have the votes to put a bill on Obama's desk if they can bring themselves to be reasonable.
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.

In terms of what you call lies, the critics of Obamacare have a long, long way to go before they draw even with the proponents on that score, both in number and in significance.
 
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.

People are starting to like Obamacare. 2016 is approaching and the GOP is the party that gets overwhelmingly identified with fear-mongering about Obamacare - fear-mongering that is proving more and more to have been lies.

The question becomes: now that they haven't been able to make Obamacare fail, what will they do next?

Will we ever get a serious GOP healthcare bill? And if so, will they be able to sell it? They probably have the votes to put a bill on Obama's desk if they can bring themselves to be reasonable.
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.

But, if you really want to be democratic about it, Obamacare has been underwater in popularity since before it was even passed. More than any other issue, Obamacare has blown the Democrats out of office, not only in the House and Senate, but also in State Houses and Governors mansions across the country. Obama got far less of the popular vote in '12 than he did in '08. So much so that if Romney could have just garnered as much as McCain did, Obama would live at a different address right now. Don't let the weakness of the Republicans convince you of the strength of Obama or his namesake legislation. And, as already mentioned, most of the nasty parts of Obamacare have not hit yet. The tax, er, I mean penalty...no wait, tax...has not jumped up yet. Premiums are continuing to rise, waits are already starting to increase, and we have less than 8 million people even in the program that have actually paid for it, subsidies or no. The workforce has been massively disrupted, with many people seeing the end of full time employment and having to have two or three part time jobs, still with no employer provided insurance, and now a mandate to spend a fortune on even the most basic Obamacare plan (or pay the ever rising tax/penalty/tax). Obamacare is every bit the disaster today that it has always been and will continue to be. Obamacare will eventually fail with or without the Republicans. The question is just how much pain and damage to the country is going to have to take place on the way.

People crowing about Obamacare today are like the twenty year old smoking a pack a day and laughing at people warning him about the consequences. Just because he is still doing fine a few years later doesn't mean that he isn't doing massive damage that will bite him eventually.
 
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.

But, if you really want to be democratic about it, Obamacare has been underwater in popularity since before it was even passed. More than any other issue, Obamacare has blown the Democrats out of office, not only in the House and Senate, but also in State Houses and Governors mansions across the country.

People crowing about Obamacare today are like the twenty year old smoking a pack a day and laughing at people warning him about the consequences. Just because he is still doing fine a few years later doesn't mean that he isn't doing massive damage that will bite him eventually.
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.

And besides, why should we listen to a pitch based on "democracy" from people who don't support democracy? All the anti-ACA folks in Congress needed to do was repeal Obamacare. That's how democracy works. If democracy spoke clearly against Obamacare, as you seem to think, why is there still Obamacare?

It's funny to get a cigarette analogy from the side that denies global warming. But since you went there, the correct analogy is that we haven't seen all the benefits of Obamacare yet, and those we have seen people really like - such as being able to get insurance for millions of people, the elimination of preexisting conditions exclusions, and more.
 
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.

O.K., let's put it another way. He is a loser on a losing side.
 
O.K., let's put it another way. He is a loser on a losing side.
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?

If you need to do that to feel better, you've got something else going wrong. I hope it gets better for you.
 
I'm not sure why that is irony, I was really curious if any of the posters commenting on "Scalia nailing it" had actually read it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT