Discussion for article #231214
Always leave it to the GOP to harm as many people as possible, save the 1%.
21 Likes
The beggining of the overeach,
7 Likes
Yet another example of GOPer hypocrisy, delivered in their usual comical clumsiness.
6 Likes
ââŚthe law clearly saysâŚâ
Torture is criminal. Yet Republicans are happy to interpret that law to mean what theyâd like it to mean, not what it actually says.
16 Likes
Theyâre not undermining their case at all. The die has been cast and 5 corrupted Republican Ju$ti¢e$ will kill the ACA.
4 Likes
This article would be better if it explained some of the practical aspects, for example, in what context might the justices be exposed to comments from GOP lawmakers? Can they be quoted in briefs or during the oral arguments (which havenât taken place yet, right??)? Or is there a reliance that the justices will hear about them independently (right, as if Clarence Thomas reads anything besides Playboy and Sports Illustrated!) and, if so, are they really âallowedâ to consider them in their deliberations?
11 Likes
We all know that Slappy Thomas reads just one book over and over againâAyn Randâs The Virtue of Selfishness!
1 Like
This would have little barring. As they Court has taken various actions and kicked back to Congress. all they have to say is that this is an issue for the legislature. It is a punt for them and basically saying that it is not our fault that the elected reps will not do anything.
SCOTUSblog has some good articles on the whole affair. The thing you realize quickly, even someone not in tuned with the law, is that the proponents of killing the subsidize really come off like they want to hurt the law. Or, that they are absolute literalistic, in the sense that every sentence must be taken in an isolated context to itself. No other definitions may be used.
Some lawyers and professors lay out pretty compelling claims that there is not much of a way to rule against the law, unless you take the one part in a vacuum. Following the previously referred sections and definitions within the law lead to conclusions that the government is correct in their interpretation. To think otherwise creates the interesting problems laid out before. Like HHS being able to establish exchanges, but not being able to legally sell insurance on the exchange or for that matter a round about way of saying that they cannot establish an exchange despite the law telling it to do so if the state would not.
Seems the Courts should interrupt a law in a way to do the least amount of worming.
15 Likes
It will not likely be in the governmentâs brief because itâs outside the record on appeal and, in any case, itâs a thing the real asswipes will deem irrelevantââwonât do itâ isnât relevant to them. Only thing relevant to them will be that Congress could fix this one sentence if it wanted to. But I will definitely be in several of the amicus briefs.
8 Likes
ActuallyâŚAs a big supporter of the PPACA, I am finding some rather disturbing thingsâŚMy wifeâs Bronze went from affordable last year to Unaffordable this yearâŚnow, I donât know all of the facts yet, but it does look like we go without insurance once againâŚthanks to the gopâŚfuck themâŚ
2 Likes
âthat the challengers are simply trying to perfect the lawâs implementation, not harm it.â
I havenât laughed this hard in a long time! Thanks for the laugh!!
7 Likes
âa major do-over of the whole thingâ says the Turtle. How? Repeal Obamacare but keep Kynect? Thatâs your plan?
8 Likes
Roberts could just rule that states donât have to have a state exchange to get subsidies like he said that states did not have to expand Medicaid based on equal rights protection clause.
Roberts doesnât have to âruleâ to make this happen all he has to do is not take a sentence out of context and not IGNORE another sentence that determines that context!
-
The law states that subsidies are available to those who purchase insurance on an exchange established by the state.
-
The law states that if states fail to establish an exchange the federal government will establish âsuch exchangeâ for them.
-
The term âsuch exchangeâ clearly means the federal exchange and the state exchange are equivalent under the law.
The Republican position here is that the first clause must be read hyper-literally and counter to the expressed intent of the legislature, but the second clause must be treated as meaningless and ignored!
21 Likes
Youâve just described Antonin Scalia. Read his decision in DC v. Heller. Except that Scalia doesnât stop at sentences. He applies this to clauses, phrases, and even individual words.
6 Likes
HAHA. LIbtards ACtuaLLY think the SUPReme COURt reaDS TPM??
7 Likes
Please keep checking. The subsidy you could get to help pay the cost probably increased too. I have a sliver plan and it went up but so did the amount of the subsidy. Do not accept defeat too easily.
6 Likes
This is all based on the assumption that the court cares about logic and the constitution. The Gang of Four, at least, seem to pretty much go for whatever result they want, and pretty up some arguments that appear to support it.
8 Likes
Work with me here. The rabid right calls rational people who view the government as a tool to help people âstatistsâ. They are always critical of âthe stateâ - meaning any government larger than their village chief.
So âestablished by the stateâ - clearly means state or federal government. There is no problem with the wording. Just the ideology that would gin up a problem out of thin air.
9 Likes