15

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Subsidies Under Obamacare

Posted by Poplicola 9 years, 10 months ago to News
71 comments | Share | Flag

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent.“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote, who was also joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the dissent.Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    #3: 30% of the people get to the point that they are willing to take risks involved to forcibly throw the bums out and take such action.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 10 months ago
    Mr. Justice Scalia would be the Judge Narragansett of a real-life Gulch. His disssent had fire in those pages. "Gobbledygook!" "Interpretative jiggery-pokery!" Not exactly Blackstone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hi O.A.
    I also have lived too long. The final push begun by the Marxists in the 1960s has culminated in a bloodless Coup d'etat. They now have all branches of our government under their control. Whether this will spark a counter revolution remains to be seen. I am sickened by the collapse of America and our individual rights.

    All the best
    j_IR1776wg
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not sure. There are no requirements to be a Justice other than nomination by the Pez and approval of the Senate. Hard to find a charge that would stick. Do they take an oath of office? Does it have an escape clause like the the one used by the Pez? I believe once in they are their for life or until they resign.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 10 months ago
    Can I get my Justice Supreme without the side of social responsibility fries and instead upgrade to a Texas-sized cup of Danneskjold repos?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What is a state exchange and what is the credit they are exchanging? It sounds awfully close to Take From Those Who Produce and Give To Those Who Do Not Produce - no doubt by buying the wrong ticket in lifes lottery.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago
    Anything; said or done that supports the Party is the truth. V.I. Lenin. J. Carville. tune in for tomorrows version. Lest you miss the New Truth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello j_IR1776wg,
    I feel as if I have lived too long... Very sad. Where is that defibrillator when you need it? A shot of adrenaline? I wish it were just a bad dream I could wake from.
    I only see tougher times and an eventual meltdown in the future.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 10 months ago
    Apparently "the letter of the law" doesn't mean what I thought it did. If we only have to be concerned about the spirit of the law, and don't have to follow it to the letter, I wonder if I can use that argument for a speeding ticket.

    Gee judge, I didn't think 70 meant 70. After all, "established by the state" doesn't mean "established by the state"!

    I had hoped for better from the SCOTUS, but if they can't figure out A=A, it does not bode well.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 10 months ago
    Well this certainly narrows the options for the country as a whole to 2.

    Option 1 - Depend on the spineless empty suits in the house and senate to repeal or heavily modify the Unaffordable care act....unlikely given the vertabrae shortage in that group

    Option 2 - end it after it craters the economy and bankrupts the country totally. The more likely outcome...


    Betting pool??
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gaiagal 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agree wholeheartedly that this was more financial rather than ideological.

    The Constitution has been reduced to words written on a piece of paper that is now only suitable for those who study the mythology of past cultures.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 10 months ago
    Of course it doesn't say "Exchange established by the state", it says "Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

    Section 1311 describes how states can set up plans.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gaiagal 9 years, 10 months ago
    It's a sad day when the SCOTUS is as unlawful as the president and his administration. Moral relativity rules.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello freedomforall,
    A most likely prognostication. They are all spineless statists. It is only Kabuki theater with a varying matter of degrees and rhetoric. The House did vote many times to repeal O'care, but O will surely veto and congress jointly will never muster two thirds. Once again the producers get shafted with the burden,
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by $ number6 9 years, 10 months ago
    Lets see, My wife and I work, pay taxes, pay for our own housing, pay for our own cell phones, pay for our own food, receive ZERO direct government assistance (which is fine) and pay exorbitant heath insurance premiums in order to pay equally high co-pays and deductibles and be attacked for not caring about our fellow man.

    Or we could not work, thereby not pay taxes, receive discounted or free housing, free cell phones, free food, free clothing, and Government paid for health coverage with ZERO deductibles and co pays.

    Is this the end game of “”From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” when nothing is taken from some who have abilities but choose not to use them and then take more than they “need” because they can …….
    or is it closer to “From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed” …..

    “Who is John Galt?”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 9 years, 10 months ago
    I strongly suspect that the key motivator was not ideological, but rather financial. Overturning ACA at this juncture would have severe economic ramifications. The maxim "Let justice be done though the heavens may fall" takes one more retreating step towards the quaint antiquities closet, taking the Constitution with it.

    ~Sigh~
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The GOP Con-gress will do nothing, except perhaps spend more money on socialist programs and warm their hands over the burning constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 10 months ago
    Hello Poplicola,
    Score one more for the statists and one more ignorant decision by the SCOTUS. This is not that surprising since words no longer have meaning; the Constitution suffers the same fate and no longer says what it says, but instead says what some want it to. Roberts has turned out to be a major disappointment. Since the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the intent of Constitution instead of adjusting it to political whim, I find they have abnegated their true mission and as such have no value. Congress must now act to de-fund and whatever else they can do or they are just accomplices to despotism. If not, by the time we get a new POTUS this affront will be even more difficult if not impossible to repeal.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo