I'm slightly surprised the Majority was 6-3; rather than 5-4 or (horrors) overturning them.Breaking
By a 6-3 vote. Can't image the flustercluck had they not upheld them.
Did you read the decision? You may want to read his dissent before wagging your finger at Scalia. And the "legal merits" of support on the majority opinion are dubious at best. Even Roberts and the Majority say "Petitioner's arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong" and "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase." Scalia's dissent is a lesson on statutory construction without a whit of partisan spin. On the contrary, it's the Majority with the partisan spin.I guess this ruling restores at least some of my faith in, and respect for, the Supreme Court. Without a doubt there are some Justices (I'm looking' at you, Antonin Scalia) that seem intent on injecting a partisan spin on to every case. But in the greater scheme of things it does look like Chief Justice Roberts is prepared to examine and rule on cases on their legal merits.
This is all I've seen of it so far.Scalia's dissent
I agree that that sounds rather devoid of partisanship, but I guess it's easier for some to project partisanship where there is none, just to ensure partisanship continues.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.”
CNN linkFox News: Socialism Triumphs in America
MSNBC: GOP Plan to Take Away Your Healthcare Foiled
CNN: Search for Missing Plan Continues
I'm right. They never had a plan they were serious about. They never tried to amend the ACA improving it, they just voted 100 times to kill it without simultaneously offering an alternative, which if they were serious about offering this kind of a benefit, it was the perfect time to do so to convince the people they were serious about offering health care assistance. They are hostile to the idea but are trying to convince us they care.
Pretty pathetic that it took them more than 5 years to come up with an alternative.
There is no guarantee that a SCOTUS justice picked by a conservative/liberal president will make "conservative/liberal" decisions throughout a 20-30 year career on the bench. People change, opinions evolve, etc. Anthony Kennedy was selected by Ronald Reagan and now he is pretty much the swing vote. Ultra-liberals John Paul Stevens and David Souter were Ford and Bush 41 picks, respectively.I'd love to ask Obama if he regrets his no vote on confirming Roberts.
did you see the out of pocket cost? HOW can anyone that gets a subsidy afford that? yeay you have insurance, too bad you can't go with those out of pockcet cost :doh:I listened to Obama's presser, and I still disagree with his assumption that insurance is affordable. We are still getting screwed by the insurance companies. Sure there are subsidizes but that doesn't change that fact that we are still getting gouged.
In other words, there is much room for improvement. We've allowed corporatism to become a monster. Time to call for the white knight to slay the dragon (no racial connection implied).I listened to Obama's presser, and I still disagree with his assumption that insurance is affordable. We are still getting screwed by the insurance companies. Sure there are subsidizes but that doesn't change that fact that we are still getting gouged.
try some common sense, what good is insurance if you can't afford to go?THIS IS NOTHING NEW. Conservatives and the GOP have a real issue when it comes to humanity and morality, discerning the path forward, which is out of synch with average citizens. In the name of profits, they will be dragged forward kicking and screaming AS USUAL.
The bill does nothing to lower the costs of services, which is the #1 issue.I listened to Obama's presser, and I still disagree with his assumption that insurance is affordable. We are still getting screwed by the insurance companies. Sure there are subsidizes but that doesn't change that fact that we are still getting gouged.