The SCOTUS of today won’t do anything unless it’s sanctioned by GOD, that is by the Vatican. Today they are kind of lost and trying to figure out where this Francis came from. “He is not one of us so who is he? What’s wrong with him? Why didn’t he love little boys or did he? This shitty wine and the stale crackers, the body of an old jew (thanks CJ W for the words), why do people not like it?” Let us pray.
Certainly mouse clicks, angst, handwringing and doom-saying are the life-blood of websites (whether they be right or left).
That being said, getting minorities, single women and people under forty to vote with the same zeal as Old People and Confederates would have resulted in Nancy Pelosi sitting where John Boehner presides, and would have made the mouse clicks, angst and handwringing more like watching a WWF match instead of a Death Watch over the future of the United States of America.
1 Like
I won’t pretend to understand all of the legal arguments over this issue. However, I can’t imagine that even the Roberts court would invalided health care services for folks in over 30 states. Surely they can see the intent of the law was coverage, not an ad hoc system of state exchanges covered and federally run exchanges not.
JFK asked what you can do for your country. I ask what have the Repuk’s done for you and this country lately ???
Yes but this is SCROTUS. They start with the desired outcome and work backwards. Stare Decisis means nothing to this gang of thugs.
2 Likes
Maybe in an alternate universe where Spock survives. Not in this world.
Looks like another 5-4 with Roberts going with the liberal 4, to preserve his legacy (the only decent one he has at present, which doesn’t go far towards, from a legacy standpoint, Citizens United and Hobby Lobby.
I like, not really, that all of the articles make it seem like Obama and the law are just sitting ducks. Nothing that the Prez can do except be attacked and take what comes at him.
It’s total, absolute, bullshit. President Obama has, with regularity, gotten things done that the supposedly fully obstructionist Republicans have screamed that they wouldn’t let happen. We do have the ACA right now, do we not? The Republicans couldn’t hold back the tide before it ever really got rolling and the results of that loss have damaged their credibility something huge. The tide is now a tidal wave.
Are they still willing to watch Americans suffer and risk their existence over a foolish fight. That’s a rhetorical question because of course they are. That’s what makes them neo-cons and teabaggers and nothing else.
The most obnoxious of this nation are oversampled and given more weight than due. If the Republicans pull off their dream and take healthcare away from 20 or 30 million people, they will hear from the silent masses and that includes me, a two time cancer survivor that probably is alive due to Obamacare.
Hiding behind activist conservative Judges robes won’t save them or help them a bit either. They are all Republicans in the end no matter the stripe or robe and that’s who’ll get the blame. They are scum for even considering the effort.
5 Likes
A right-wing (in)Justice named Toni
Is well known for spouting baloney
With writings inept
And no Aricept®
His brain is last week’s macaroni.
1 Like
I read this quite differently. I read it as Scalia having seen the statutory drafting problem and explicitly noting that no opportunity to exploit it was before him in the 2012 case but hinting to the Federalist Society nutballers that they should bring a case making precisely that argument because, wink-wink, it would totally undermine the whole law if a court accepted it.
2 Likes
parody on the unfounded, crazy criticisms of the ACA, right?
Thank you. We fuggin’ need to repeat that sentiment, loudly and often.
Any idiot who thinks Sanders or any other third party candidate has a hoot in hell of winning, or even worse any bike-riding, TV-eschewing, self-righteous New Ager who just votes third party to “punish” the Dems, might as well be a Republican for all the good they’re doing.
2 Likes
They are followers of the Ayn Rand fauxlosophy. To a Republican, there is no community. People gather in cities only to serve those who make a profit. National government exists only to make war and keep the population in line.
You want to see what America will be like under the Tea Party? Look at Mexico.
Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong,but couldn’t “the state” also mean “the country” as in the Federal Government?
There are two decisions out there in conflict with each other so it seems like SCOTUS has to weigh in.
But it also seems to me that Roberts sides with what is best for corporations over ideology. Having more people send money to insurance companies is a good thing. Subsidy money doesn’t come from the rich, it’s just re-distribution. And bankrupting hospitals that are required to care for the uninsured all is not in the best corporate interest. Passes 7 - 2.
Are you talking about Hillary Clinton? How do people’s thoughts about a future election imply any sort of moral responsibility for the present Supreme Court?
Effectively only a dozen or fewer states decide US presidential elections; the rest are certain long before Election Day. Do thoughts of voters in the safe states about 2016 have the same deleterious effect on 2014 Supreme Court composition?
I’m sorry. Are we pretending we don’t know how 8 of the Justices are going to vote already?
Of course, it’s perfectly plausible that someone in CA, UT, NY, AL, etc. might want the Democrat to win the 2016 presidential election yet might vote for another candidate. They could correctly believe that their own vote has nothing to do with the election’s outcomee
For conservatives this would literally be a case where they spite their nose despite their face.
I used to design systems. The number one rule was never take away an existing feature. You can add, but you cannot subtract a capability.
The people who would get hosed live in red states. It’s one thing to not give insurance to poor people who already do not have it, quite possibly they don’t miss what they don’t have, and many vote democratic already. It is another thing altogether to take insurance away from those that have it.
And they would be taking it away from people who live in red states.
The paleoconservatives who want to undermine Obamacare would be happy to deny subsidies to Obamacare subscribers. But they would be taking it away from people in red states, people who have the habit of voting Republicon. If they want their health insurance back, they’ll have to vote Democratic. If they cover their needs by punching a straight ticket, then we could see more Democrats in state legislature and governorships.
That could mean medicaid expansions as well.
As a Democrat who wants everyone to have health insurance, I don’t know which way to go on this issue.
It would be quite interesting to see if the electorate punished Republicons for this.
However, I think the idiots conservatives sitting on the Supreme Court are not as idiotic as the ones in politics. I think they’ll rule with Obamacare on this.
Meanwhile Democrats should be campaigning on a theme of: protect your you access to health insurance and economic security in old age by voting Democratic.
3 Likes
O’connor has the blood of 5,000 Americans, 100,000 Iraqis, the economic implossion, the destruction of the well being of millions of American families, the destruction of the American social contract, and so on, all on her hands.
She should burn in hell for voting for Bush. It is impossible not to realize the consequences of voting for a reactionary conservative who is also a dried drunk who is also an idiot in the field of civics.
1 Like