Was Hoping SCOTUS Would Stick A Dagger Into Obamacare... quite the opposite, sadly

[fhl]

"Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges," Scalia writes, forgetting that the people who actually wrote the law were not only available to provide evidence of their intent, but did so."

More >>

So a huffingandpuffingtonpost writer thinks we should ignore the unambiguous writing of the text and rely instead on what the pathological liars who said you could keep your doctor said.

Why am I not surprised that they would say this?

 

[Tsing Tao]

They're not rewording the law, so far as I know. So your limitation was met, uphold or overturn.

But it is rewording it when the law says "Blue" and the court says "intent was it should have said Violet". States means states. There's no other way around it. I get that without the SC's help the law would not have worked as intended. But that's not the SC's job - to fix legislation.

 

[Wallet]

The Concrete lines of Separation of Powers have been irreversibly broken Today, the rule of law no longer exists . From here on the precedent of the Court determining the intent of a law (regardless of it's written form) has been established.

Heaven Help Us.

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

They do major stuff with no precedent at all sometimes. They cite European law and International agreements that the US has never signed on to. They make stuff up when they want to...

 

[Tsing Tao]

The Concrete lines of Separation of Powers have been irreversibly broken Today, the rule of law no longer exists . From here on the precedent of the Court determining the intent of a law (regardless of it's written form) has been established.

Heaven Help Us.

Don't forget that the "intent" can change based on the "intent" of who is sitting in those seats at the SC, too.

 

[Wallet]

Don't forget that the "intent" can change based on the "intent" of who is sitting in those seats at the SC, too.

Exactly! I don't think people understand the slippery slope that was established today.

This Country will never be the same.

In the future when established laws are overturned on a perceived change in intent we will have today's decision to look back on.

 

[Ricter]

Exactly! I don't think people understand the slippery slope that was established today.

This Country will never be the same.

You have a better system in mind, than using human beings to interpret human matters?

 

[Scataphagos]

Don't forget that the "intent" can change based on the "intent" of who is sitting in those seats at the SC, too.

Is that because "justice is now activist rather than blind"?

IOW... it no longer matters "what's right"... only "who butters your bread?".

 

[jimmiebarton]

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-us-new-13-billion-warship-2015-6

ONE warship..13 BILLION

how many under insured cancer patients would help?

every one is under insured when serious health issues strike...live long enough

 

[Wallet]

You have a better system in mind, than using human beings to interpret human matters?

I think the interpretation is determined when a law is written. That's why careful consideration is given to wording and "legalese" is implemented so there is no "undefined" intent.

When they used the term "States" that is what they meant.