Obama care subsidies are illegal rules court

[Yssup Rider]

Dear Professor Idiot --

You claim to be an educator, but have never explained which discipline you teach.

As educated person, and as someone who has sent several children through school (and grad school) I can say without hesitation that you are full of SHIT.

NO UNIVERSITY WOULD ALLOW SOMEONE TO TEACH A CLASS WHO CAN'T WRITE PROPER ENGLISH.

Your headline is abhorrent!

It should read COURT RULES OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES ILLEGAL, if you're using newspaper style.

If you're using blog style is might even say COURT RULES OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES ARE ILLEGAL.

What you've written says : DUUUUHHHHRRRRRR!

You expose your ignorance with every thread you post.

(Niggling argument, I'll admit, but if the shoe fits, JDIdiot, shove it up your dumb ass!)

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

LL....so far 4 judge's have agreed with me and 2 with you.

You have it ass-backwards.

They didn't agree with you, duffus.

I am sure they don't have a clue as to what you think. I'm not sure you do.

Hopefully, you will be able to convince the Bimbos surrounding the Judges agree with you, but you don't convince me. And, for the record, two didn't agree with me. I didn't tell them what i thought either.

I can read though, and until I got "timed out" I was adding Roberts' evaluation of the authority of Government as it relates to the ACA. His opinion was a majority opinion, and apparently there were at least a couple of dissenters that agreed with his principles of statutory interpretation, but came out differently on the meaning of a word in the ACA.

Unfortunately for you, and the 4 judges with whom you agree, its not a matter of the meaning of a word in the statute, it is a matter of the lack of several words in the statute. "Slightly" different.

Roberts:
"Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use."

Not the President or the Administration. Congress hasn't done that.

And he clarifies while addressing a part of the dissent's concerns:

"This is not to say, as the joint dissent suggests, that we are “rewriting the Medicaid Expansion.” Post, at 48. Instead, we determine, first, that §1396c is unconstitutional when applied to withdraw existing Medicaid fundsfrom States that decline to comply with the expansion. We then follow Congress’s explicit textual instruction to leave unaffected “the remainder of the chapter, and theapplication of [the challenged] provision to other persons or circumstances.” §1303. When we invalidate an application of a statute because that application is unconstitutional, we are not “rewriting” the statute; we are merely enforcing the Constitution."

Other votes expressed a concern that the Court was "rewriting" the statute. The Court would have to "rewrite" the statute to uphold the subsidies for Federal applicants, and there is justification stated directly in the law for the disparate treatment between the State and Federal applicants. Roberts even anticipated in his opinion that some States would not participate in the expansion. That "deficiency" was for Congress to address, not the Courts.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It should read COURT RULES OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES ILLEGAL, if you're using newspaper style.

Did you understand his headline?

[Yssup Rider]

I had to look at it for a while.

[nevergaveitathought]

The problem is the politicization of the judiciary

It began, actually I know not when, but it has found it's footing in the idea words may just not mean what words mean and that, not only we can, but we should, substitute our superior intellect and our greater caring for the law

The left treats our constitution thusly. Why is it any wonder this written text is seen by the left and their "judges" to actually mean what we intend it to mean and not what it says.

We have no law upon which we can rely. We have politics. We have Obama, the lawless and we have his freislers

[IIFFOFRDB]

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

The problem is the politicization of the judiciary

It began, actually I know not when, ....

I believe the last State ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1790.

Article II, § 2, Clause 2.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I believe the last State ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1790.

Article II, § 2, Clause 2.

I am confident it pre-dated the American constitution

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I am confident it pre-dated the American constitution

I have no doubt. But I thought the "concern" was the current U.S. system.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

The problem is the politicization of the judiciary

It began, actually I know not when, but it has found it's footing in the idea words may just not mean what words mean and that, not only we can, but we should, substitute our superior intellect and our greater caring for the law

The left treats our constitution thusly. Why is it any wonder this written text is seen by the left and their "judges" to actually mean what we intend it to mean and not what it says.

We have no law upon which we can rely. We have politics. We have Obama, the lawless and we have his freislers

It started here with John Adams and his "Midnight Appointments".

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Hey, ignoramus! How does this cartoon relate to the post?

Simple question. Should be a simple answer. Try it, Simple Jack!

[Jackie S]

Question. What is to keep the President from simply issuing an executive order.

He has already "changed" the law several times with the stroke of a pen. Nobody is going to stop him.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Question. What is to keep the President from simply issuing an executive order.

His surrogate ... the IRS .... is taking care of that little dirty deed.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Question. What is to keep the President from simply issuing an executive order.

He has already "changed" the law several times with the stroke of a pen. Nobody is going to stop him.

Not the Republican Congress, not the Republican Supreme Court, not the screams of agony by the millions of ignorant seniors who want the gummint's hands off their Medicare...

You're right.

Nobody's going to stop him.

You know why?

Health care for ALL is the RIGHT THING TO DO. And deep down, even the biggest douchebags among you know it to be true. Keep whining about the "how." But the fundamental "what" is right, moral and American. Even Jesus would agree... Clarence Jones wrote a book about that, didn't he, whir-LIE-turd?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Not the Republican Congress, not the Republican Supreme Court, not the screams of agony by the millions of ignorant seniors who want the gummint's hands off their Medicare...

You know why?

Health care for ALL is the RIGHT THING TO DO.

Fortunately for you, and others like you, "DOING THE RIGHT THING" is not a legal standard by which a Court decides the disposition of you, and others like you.

Today what is the RIGHT THING TO DO for you is the WRONG THING TO DO for someone else ... and vice versa .... when the deciders change, and also the result.