Discussion for article #232111
Ryan just another gop asshole.
9 Likes
Scalia,Thomas & Co will decide on ideological and political grounds, not facts.
Thatâs why they agreed to hear the case: to put the wood to Obama.
29 Likes
Precisely what I was going to say. The Fatuous Five are not swayed by facts, previous case law, or common sense. Their decision will be based on ideology and political expediency.
24 Likes
Anybody who was paying attention during the ruling on Hobby Lobby knows how this will go:
-
Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will reflexively vote against subsidies and argue, in contradiction to centuries of common law and case law, that what matters is a single word in the law itself and not the stated intent of its authors or its opponents.
-
Kennedy will happily latch onto the âstates rightsâ argument that the decision to accept subsidies is up to the individual states and so declare that the issue is one of states choosing to participate or not.
-
And Roberts will take the fig leaf presented by the plaintiffâs lawyers that the law can be âfixedâ later on to cover his fears that ruling against the subsidies will hurt the courtâs reputation, despite virtually every prominent Republican making clear theyâre gleefully awaiting a ruling against the subsidies in order to allow the law to drown in its own blood.
I think we can just accept that the Sebelius ruling was a fluke, that Roberts ruled in favor of the law simply because his fears of being seen as a partisan hack overrode his being a partisan hack. And that any hope that such considerations would color his future rulings was misplaced.
19 Likes
Well, I was sure surprised last year when I signed up on healthcare.gov and found out IMMEDIATELY that I did not qualify for any subsidy.
Hubby and I earn decent money but nowhere near $100,000 and if you are married and your combined income is over $46,000 you get nothing.
1 Like
Every SCOTUS member already knows how he/she will vote. The whole prospect of a thoughtful, deliberative body is a sham. It is a disgrace.
The fact that all of Congress understood the implication of the law, ie that the federal exchanges have the same financial advantages for people as the state ones means nothing to the Supreme Court, and they will have no consquences for what they will do, so they donât care. At all. They probably are laughing right now. (If they are out of bed yet)
19 Likes
Pretty Much - they will have the pull to pull Roberts in, or they wonât. Whether or not the facts support this interpretation is irrelevant to the four horseman.
4 Likes
But Ryan said that taxpayers would take care of you. Do you think it could be an honest mistake? Sure. Iâm positive that heâll make a correction any minute now.
1 Like
whatâs with the hipster beard⌠heâs looking like jake gyllenhaal.
1 Like
Actually, there are only 4 âconservativesâ on the courtâŚThomas doesnât count, as heâs Scaliaâs Meat Puppet. God knows he canât think, speak or write for himself.
7 Likes
He WISHESâŚ
2 Likes
Eykis
Well, I was sure surprised last year when I signed up on healthcare.gov and found out IMMEDIATELY that I did not qualify for any subsidy.
Hubby and I earn decent money but nowhere near $100,000 and if you
are married and your combined income is over $46,000 you get nothing.
So, youâre a teabagger who decided to take from the 'big bad government"?
Hmmmm, Paul is looking rather shady with his after-five shadow beard.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Paul tested out with a high score on the âlitmus testâ for âshady dudesâ.
The case before the Court is this: can the Republican Party make the government mandate that everyone must believe something which everyone knows is not true?
9 Likes
1. Comments off the floor of Congress donât count as legislative history because theyâre not part of the legislative record.
2. Comments of opponents usually get very little weight even when included in the legislative history.
3. âOriginalistsâ like Scalia and Alito, taking their professed doctrine on itâs own terms, donât believe legislative history is relevant.
4. âOriginalismâ is a sham doctrine that is a pretext for rawly partisan judicial activism.
5. Thomas doesnât think legislative history is relevant.
6. Kennedy has ODS.
7. As far as John Roberts is concerned, legislative history, precedent and evidence are just things you use after the fact to give doing whatever you want to do, for whatever institutional, ideological or political reason you want to do it, a superficial patina of integrity.
Itâs all about what Roberts wants to do. Heâll reason backward from that result. Ryanâs comments couldnât be less relevant to his backward reasoning.
25 Likes
âCanât afford a college education? Donât worry about it. Taxpayers got you covered. Oh, waitâŚthat was meâŚâ
10 Likes
Ryan is an unremarkable person of average intelligence, and talent, kind of a dufus actually.
How the heck did end up the chairperson of The Ways & Means Committee.
10 Likes
Answer: No. He didnât.
Reason: Since when has the current SCOTUS given a damn about precedent or FACTS when deciding cases based upon their personal religious and political opinions?
4 Likes
Youcan call and leave a message for the conservative 5âŚroberts cut off the email after âcitizens unitedââŚ
1.202.470.3000 or 1.202.479.3211!
They have done nothing but screw Americans since they were appointed1
4 Likes