Obamacare now to be called SCOTUScare

[TommyGunn]

The Supreme Court has done it again.
Ignoring the U.S. Constitution, ignoring the plain (admitted) meaning of the law,  our renowned justices in a 6-3 decision have kept "Obamacare" intact.   The states that did not set up their own "Obamacare" exchanges will continue receiving taxpayer supported entitlements and remain intact.
We can no longer count upon SCOTUS to halt the country from being dragged down the hell-hole of socialism/fascism.  
I am not going to be drawn into a debate as to whether or not we could have prior to today .... it might have been debatable then, but it isn't now.

[Ron]

To be expected; a ratchet only moves one way.

Any liberty preserving decisions that get handed down are just adversarial research for the opposition on how to attack liberty more effectively next time.

[Ron]

On a positive note, this should finally put to rest the idea that voting for Republicans will help us get control of the courts.

 

[Perd Hapley]

So they ruled against Obamacare, against Congress, and against the bill the President signed into law. I guess Congress shouldn't care, though. It's not as if they knew what new laws they were voting for.

[TommyGunn]

On a positive note, this should finally put to rest the idea that voting for Republicans will help us get control of the courts.

↑↑↑↑↑

All my life I've seen ...."republican" presidents nominate "supposedly" conservative justices to SCOTUS only to find, once they're in, they take a hard left turn.
I'd like to see a Democrat president nominate a liberal justice, get him(her) in, and watch as that justice takes a hard right turn.
But I ain't holding my breath.  
Enough to turn one into a conspiracy theorist.
 


Need to buy more ammo ....... AGAIN.

[TommyGunn]

So they ruled against Obamacare, against Congress, and against the bill the President signed into law. I guess Congress shouldn't care, though. It's not as if they knew what new laws they were voting for.

Uh, they ruled FOR Obamacare ..... what are YOU listening to....Pravda? 

[SADShooter]

Uh, they ruled FOR Obamacare ..... what are YOU listening to....Pravda? 

That bulge on the side of his face? It's his tongue.

[TommyGunn]

That bulge on the side of his face? It's his tongue.

THANK God for that .... I thought it might be a tumor, in which case he'd be at the mercy of Obamacare.

[brimic]

On a positive note, this should finally put to rest the idea that voting for Republicans will help us get control of the courts.

 

..or control of the budget.
Between boehner and mcconnel, I can't figure out which is the bigger, more useless shitbird.

[Ron]

Fistful is referencing the fact that the court ruled according to what they decided the intent of the law was, not the actual language.

[RocketMan]

I really hope no one here was expecting a different outcome.  If you were expecting something different, I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in.

[KD5NRH]

Just got this in an email.  I'm now taking bets as to who Abbott is planning to back in the Presidential race.

Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare:

“The Supreme Court abandoned the Constitution to resuscitate a failing healthcare law. Today’s action underscores why it is now more important than ever to ensure we elect a President who will repeal Obamacare and enact real healthcare reforms.”

[Ron]

According to American Thinker this wasn't even the worse decision announced today.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/worse_than_obamacare_scotus_upholds_disparate_impact_as_discrimination.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

[Ben]

I barely lasted 4 minutes into Obama's conference on the decision before I got so boiling mad I couldn't stand it. The outright lies he was telling started at the first word and never stopped.

As to Ron's post on housing, I saw that as well. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it will mean. It seems to be obvious that it's no longer okay to let anyone of any race, creed, gender or color who can afford the house next to you buy it and move in.

[SADShooter]

According to American Thinker this wasn't even the worse decision announced today.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/worse_than_obamacare_scotus_upholds_disparate_impact_as_discrimination.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Yay! Another blackmail angle for Al Sharpton and the race hustler industry.

[roo_ster]

Is it so hard for SCOTUS and fed.gov to even pay lip service to the rule of law?

Guess so. 

[brimic]

Is it so hard for SCOTUS and fed.gov to even pay lip service to the rule of law?

Guess so. 

'Rule of Law' only applies to lawful people.
Welcome to Imperial America.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Sad, but not surprising.  If the SC was willing to rule against Obamacare they would have done it the first time around.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Is it so hard for SCOTUS and fed.gov to even pay lip service to the rule of law?

Guess so. 

Just wait until a 2A case arrives again. I'm sure they will hard left it.

[TommyGunn]

Fistful is referencing the fact that the court ruled according to what they decided the intent of the law was, not the actual language.

The ..."intent" was perfectly clear:   the law intended to strongarm the states into setting up exchanges, or they would find the citizens without subsidies, and that would anger them and turnthem against  republican/conservative governors.
Scotus simply reply wrote the law, period.

[Perd Hapley]

The ..."intent" was perfectly clear:   the law intended to strongarm the states into setting up exchanges, or they would find the citizens without subsidies, and that would anger them and turnthem against  republican/conservative governors.
Scotus simply reply wrote the law, period.

Exactly. If the court had ruled for the law to be implemented as written, that would have been ruling FOR Obamacare. The court ruled that the Obamacare law should not be followed.

[brimic]

Just wait until a 2A case arrives again. I'm sure they will hard left it.

Nope.
I expect the expansion of gun rights if anything.
Throw the most vocal opponents of Imperial America a bone, especially one that gives them the illusion of being able to defeat tyranny, then marginalize and/or eliminate them at will when they do become a minor distraction threat.

[TommyGunn]

Exactly. If the court had ruled for the law to be implemented as written, that would have been ruling FOR Obamacare. The court ruled that the Obamacare law should not be followed.

Talk about twisting interpretations and differing perspectives ......

They ruled "in favor" of Obamacare as the ruling allows the law to remain intact despite the clear meaning of 4 words.   It is an atrocity of a decision.  It is the second time Roberts has decided the priority of SCOTUS ought to be to interpret a law in question in whatever manner it takes to support a congressional vote & presidential signing rather than apply it to the Constitution & B.O.R.s and see if, OBJECTIVELY, it meets the test.

Fistful, I "get" where you're coming from.  Really.   I just differ in perspective.

And I am too pissed off and dispirited at this point to be getting into a debate so let's just "agree to disagree" on this .... OK?

[Perd Hapley]

No, I will not agree to disagree.    The law was not allowed to remain intact. SCOTUS rewrote the law, and gave us a different version of Obamacare than what was signed into law. If SCOTUS had preserved this law intact, if they had simply interpreted the law as per their job description, they would have ruled the way you and I both want them to.

[TommyGunn]

No, I will not agree to disagree.    The law was not allowed to remain intact. SCOTUS rewrote the law, and gave us a different version of Obamacare than what was signed into law. If SCOTUS had preserved this law intact, if they had simply interpreted the law as per their job description, they would have ruled the way you and I both want them to.

The law most ABSOLUTLY  was allowed to remain intact.  Did anyone change out those 4 words in question?  No.
I don't think you've been listening.
However,   right back.