Supreme Court gives Obama second big health care win in ruling upholding nationwide subsidies

[styrgwillidar]

Scalia nailed it.

This is scary in it’s implications for future cases as it fundamentally transforms judicial analysis. Instead of going by the written word of the law as well as considering how drafts of the law changed as it went through the process-- courts can now just decide what they think congress intended regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

For those that weren’t aware-- prior to this the courts looked at the letter of the law and the clear meaning. They also could consider earlier drafts. If the earlier draft contained wording which was changed or dropped-- the courts interpreted that to mean that congress had intentionally made the change.

In this case, the draft law at one point had everyone getting subsidies whether they were in the federal or state exchange. The wording was changed to drop folks on federal exchanges from getting subsidies. Gruber, the architect behind the fiasco, as well as others at the time indicated this was deliberate to motivate/incentivize states to set up their own exchanges. States made decisions on whether to create their own exchanges based on that incentive, on what the law actually stated.

SCOTUS ignored all that and said nope, this is what congress really intended. A very dangerous precedent for SCOTUS to now simply look at every/any case in the same way---- hey despite the words and historical record this is what WE think congress really must have meant.

We are becoming a lawless nation.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Obama didn’t do it. It was this way before his presidency. My only question is when will more conservative folks realize there is no political solution anymore. The system is beyond hope.** Republican SC justices are consistently useless. **The Republican senate just gave Obama more power and got nothing out of it. The Democrats would have at least demanded something in exchange.

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the conservative perception of America, its values, and its political system does not match up with any objective reality?

 

[SWolf]

This is scary in it’s implications for future cases as it fundamentally transforms judicial analysis. Instead of going by the written word of the law as well as considering how drafts of the law changed as it went through the process-- courts can now just decide what they think congress intended regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

For those that weren’t aware-- prior to this the courts looked at the letter of the law and the clear meaning. They also could consider earlier drafts. If the earlier draft contained wording which was changed or dropped-- the courts interpreted that to mean that congress had intentionally made the change.

In this case, the draft law at one point had everyone getting subsidies whether they were in the federal or state exchange. The wording was changed to drop folks on federal exchanges from getting subsidies. Gruber, the architect behind the fiasco, as well as others at the time indicated this was deliberate to motivate/incentivize states to set up their own exchanges. States made decisions on whether to create their own exchanges based on that incentive, on what the law actually stated.

SCOTUS ignored all that and said nope, this is what congress really intended. A very dangerous precedent for SCOTUS to now simply look at every/any case in the same way---- hey despite the words and historical record this is what WE think congress really must have meant.

We are becoming a lawless nation.

Left or right, when a court makes it’s decisions on ideology and not the written law, it’s a devastating blow for law and order.

 

[Mark121359]

Is this the same nine men and women in black robes whom we’ve pinned our hopes on to do the right thing with regards to protecting the institution of marriage?..good luck with that!

Peace, Mark

 

[exnihilo]

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the conservative perception of America, its values, and its political system does not match up with any objective reality?

What do you mean? If you mean the current culture is depraved and contains little worth worth conserving, then you are right. If you mean the values don’t match up with objective truth and morality then you are wrong.

 

[Path_Finder]

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the conservative perception of America, its values, and its political system does not match up with any objective reality?

Have you ever considered that Democratic Houses may have had to approve most of these justices?

Polls show most people identify as Conservatives anyway.

 

[Path_Finder]

Is this the same nine men and women in black robes whom we’ve pinned our hopes on to do the right thing with regards to protecting the institution of marriage?..good luck with that!

Peace, Mark

Very worrisome indeed.

 

[bibcat]

Left or right, when a court makes it’s decisions on ideology and not the written law, it’s a devastating blow for law and order.

The SCOTUS has been a super-legislature for decades now. The entire concept of judicial review of legislation is a curse that no nation should inflict upon itself. Indeed, nowhere in our Constitution is the Supreme Court given that power. It’s anti-democratic, thwarts not only the popular will, but what Rousseau (the father of modern political thought) termed the “general will.”

 

[SWolf]

The SCOTUS has been a super-legislature for decades now. The entire concept of judicial review of legislation is a curse that no nation should inflict upon itself. Indeed, nowhere in our Constitution is the Supreme Court given that power. It’s anti-democratic, thwarts not only the popular will, but what Rousseau (the father of modern political thought) termed the “general will.”

The United States was never meant to be democratic in this way. The Federal Government has very specific powers.

Do you believe in the State’s right of nullification or seccession? If not, what other force restricts the Feds from overreaching their powers?

 

[bibcat]

Do you believe in the State’s right of nullification or seccession?​

Yup. And the will of the American people, speaking through their legislators, would check federal power.

 

[SWolf]

Do you believe in the State’s right of nullification or seccession?​

Yup. And the will of the American people, speaking through their legislators, would check federal power.

Okay, then that’s consistent.

Judicial review has always been a murky topic, and I can’t say pro or contra either way. I admire you thought it through so well, even if we disagree a lot .

 

[bibcat]

Okay, then that’s consistent.

Judicial review has always been a murky topic, and I can’t say pro or contra either way. I admire you thought it through so well, even if we disagree a lot .

Cool beans.

 

[Path_Finder]

Wow are premiums for working folks going to continue to sky rocket.

 

[bibcat]

Wow are premiums for working folks going to continue to sky rocket.

My premiums and those of Mrs. Bibcat have been OK so far, but it would have been better if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way regarding the Private Health Insurance Protection Act (oops, I mean the ACA). Once the whole rotten edifice of private, employer-based health insurance collapses, Uncle Sam would be forced to pick up the pieces. And singe-payer would be born. Welcome to the civilized world.

 

[estesbob]

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the conservative perception of America, its values, and its political system does not match up with any objective reality?

If one thinks American values are killing children and deviant sexual behavior then yes conservative perception of American values is indeed skewed

 

[johnnykins]

The SCOTUS has been a super-legislature for decades now. The entire concept of judicial review of legislation is a curse that no nation should inflict upon itself. Indeed, nowhere in our Constitution is the Supreme Court given that power. It’s anti-democratic, thwarts not only the popular will, but what Rousseau (the father of modern political thought) termed the “general will.”

Actually the Article III of the Constitution gives “the judicial power” to the Supreme Court…

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

And since Marbury, at least, it has been accepted in the USA that that includes the right to say what the law is…If you don’t like it, you don’t like the US Constitution…

As to this particular case, the pundits on this Forum amply demonstrate their own bias and lack of judicial understanding. Well, ignorance is not prohibited, but sure is tiring…

Try this quote from the Boston Herald, the conservative Boston paper showing the law is anything but a slam dunk for the legal analysis preferred by so many on this Forum - the Court clearly can interpret ambiguity:

Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live. No member of Congress said that subsidies would be limited, and several states said in a separate brief to the court that they had no inkling they had to set up their own exchange for their residents to get tax credits.
bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/2015/06/supreme_court_upholds_nationwide_obamacare_subsidies

 

[exnihilo]

Wow are premiums for working folks going to continue to sky rocket.

Which is why it is an unwarranted assumption to say that the goal was to improve health insurance markets.

 

[bibcat]

Actually the Article III of the Constitution gives “the judicial power” to the Supreme Court…

And since Marbury, at least, it has been accepted in the USA that that includes the right to say what the law is…If you don’t like it, you don’t like the US Constitution…

As to this particular case, the pundits on this Forum amply demonstrate their own bias and lack of judicial understanding. Well, ignorance is not prohibited, but sure is tiring…

Try this quote from the Boston Herald, the conservative Boston paper showing the law is anything but a slam dunk for the legal analysis preferred by so many on this Forum - the Court clearly can interpret ambiguity:

Nothing in Art. III says anything about judicial review. And Marbury was a coup pulled off by CJ Marshall.

 

[estesbob]

This is great news for the publicans going into 2016 . Rather than have the president and Democrat candidates blame the Republicans for not coming up with solutions to fix it in light of a Supreme Court ruling against it the ACA now becomes, again, wholly-owned by the Democrat Party.When the penalties start kicking in with a vengeance next tax season they’re going to hear about it from even those considered their allies

 

[Al_Moritz]

In this case, the draft law at one point had everyone getting subsidies whether they were in the federal or state exchange. The wording was changed to drop folks on federal exchanges from getting subsidies. Gruber, the architect behind the fiasco, as well as others at the time indicated this was deliberate to motivate/incentivize states to set up their own exchanges. States made decisions on whether to create their own exchanges based on that incentive, on what the law actually stated.

Not so. Let’s put the myth to rest once and for all. Even the conservative justices in their original 2012 dissent** agreed on the intent of the law**:

Yup, that’s John Roberts quoting the four conservatives who dissented from the first big Supreme Court health care case back in 2012. “Without the federal subsidies … the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all,” they wrote at the time. Regardless of the fog thrown up around this since, Roberts seems to be saying, at one point Congress’s intent was well understood.

From:
Chief Justice Roberts trolled the Supreme Court’s conservatives in his Obamacare ruling