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

Ricter said:
You have a better system in mind, than using human beings to interpret human matters?
More...

Nothing wrong with using human beings as judges, as long as they don't bring politics into it. Law is based on precedent. Law is based on the language. It is not open to interpretation outside of the words already contained in the law.

If Scotuscare (my new word for it) were created in bi-partisan cooperation, and not forced through with bribes and shady deals, against public opinion, it likely would have left the SC open to saying "Sorry, if you want it to mean something else, go write something else." But everyone knows it has no chance of being adjusted in Congress. So the judges did what they could to save it - which, unfortunately, is outside their charter and will now forever open law up to revisions in the court room.
 
Scataphagos said:
BIG day for Leftism power and control.
More...

A big day for the hospital & insurance industries too- they're the real winners in all this mess. Meanwhile, liberals are too busy celebrating their 'victory' to realize they've been played yet again.

hc.jpg
 
As has too often been the case recently, Scalia's reasoning is flawed. This statement drafted by Scalia will nicely illustrate:

"The Court predicts that making tax credits unavailable in States that do not set up their own Exchanges would cause disastrous economic consequences there. If that is so, however, wouldn’t one expect States to react by setting up their own Exchanges? "

Scalia asks the above rhetorical question and assumes the answer is "Yes". Is he operating in a vacuum on some distant planet where everyone is rational and there are no politics to be played?

The answer to Scalia's question is already at hand, and it is "No".

What Rhetorical question might we expect next from Scalia? Perhaps it will be along these lines: "Considering that States that do not expand medicaid will forgo billions in Federal medicaid subsidies, cheat their citizens by causing them to subsidize medical care in other States without receiving anything in return, forgo millions in State tax revenues, and needlessly leave hundreds of thousands of their citizens without access to routine medical care, wouldn't one expect States to react by expanding medicaid?"
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
As has too often been the case recently, Scalia's reasoning is flawed. This statement drafted by Scalia will nicely illustrate:

"The Court predicts that making tax credits unavailable in States that do not set up their own Exchanges would cause disastrous economic consequences there. If that is so, however, wouldn’t one expect States to react by setting up their own Exchanges? "

Scalia asks the above rhetorical question and assumes the answer is "Yes". Is he operating in a vacuum on some distant planet where everyone is rational and there are no politics to be played?

The answer to Scalia's question is already at hand, and it is "No".

What Rhetorical question might we expect next from Scalia? Perhaps it will be along these lines: "Considering that States that do not expand medicaid will be foregoing billions in Federal medicaid subsidies, cheat their citizens by causing them to subsidize medical care in other States without receiving anything in return, be foregoing millions in State tax revenues, and leave hundreds of thousands of their citizens without access to routine medical care, wouldn't one expect States to react by expanding medicaid?"
More...

Doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to change the law, which is not in their mandate.
 
Tsing Tao said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to change the law, which is not in their mandate.
More...
When it comes to legal decisions I prefer the Court, even Scalia, over you. I'll take the Court's decision as being the more informed one. You can join Scalia in that politic free vacuum on that distant planet and argue your point with him.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
When it comes to legal decisions I prefer the Court, even Scalia, over you. I'll take the courts decision as being the more informed one in this case.
More...

Of course you would, you're a liberal.

Until, of course, the table turns, then you'll be shouting about how flawed the court is, ignorant that your own voice strengthened the cause for the court to rewrite the law in the fancy of who was in the seat at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top