[TommyGunn]

Just heard the ********* news over the radio; the Supreme Court has just announced its decision on Obamacare's State by state entitlements.
Once again, SCOTUS has ripped the Constitution to shreds, ignored the plain meaning of the law, and taken a wholly political decision.
OBAMACARE SURVIVES INTACT.
We no longer can rely on SCOTUS to save us from politicians who would have us go down the road toward socialism/fascism.

In a 6-3 decision, a dissenting justice said that we should now call "Obamacare" by another name -- "SCOTUS-CARE," admitting that the supreme court owns it just as much as Obama or the democrat controled 111th kongress that passed it.

A tragic, horrific day for America.

 

[Kevin Gibson]

It wasn't exactly the best case for de-throning the ACA. Looking at it objectively I can't say the got it wrong or right; it just is what it is.

 

[TommyGunn]

It may not have been the "best" case (the part that was in question could simply have been rewritten) but it was an obvious, painfully, plainly, clearly, CLARION decision -- and SCOTUS blew it.

 

[Tim Burke]

Twice the SCOTUS has looked at this law as written, and decided that they knew better what the legislators meant than the legislators did when they wrote the law.
They aren't supposed to bend the law to make it fit the Constitution or any particular political objective. They are merely supposed to interpret the law.

 

[WaltGraham]

What Tim said - they should have kicked it back to Congress.

On another note - if SCOTUS can make up the law as they go along, then so can the rest of us.

 

[DavidE]

Well, Elections are the key. We need a President and a Congress who will overturn it.

There is a Greek-like aspect to it. By the law, one was supposed to report on their 1040 last year that they had insurance or pay a penalty, which is why I got insurance.

I made a mistake, because the 1040 had no section to report if one was insured, and thus the people who did not follow the law did not need to pay a penalty. Indeed, my first instinct, which was not to buy insurance and tell DC to screw off, would have been correct. Stupid me, following the law, because I paid more money than those who did not. As I recall, similar enforcement of tax codes to punish those who follow them and let off those who do not is one reason Greece is in a financial red zone.

Right now the key is electing people who will overturn it, then. Not wishy washy types. With the media we have and the steamroller of BS out there, flacking for "the regime," it will be a long road.

Call me nuts, but does Donald Trump favor overturning this law? He's really the one with the most genuine vibe I see out of anyone running. So if he favors canning it (Which would help business, a lot) that would be a big plus for him.

 

[Javlin]

What Tim said - they should have kicked it back to Congress.

On another note - if SCOTUS can make up the law as they go along, then so can the rest of us.

And that was my thought's also Walt!

 

[Diamondback]

I only have four words for Chief Injustice Roberts: "Burn in Hell, traitor!"

 

[Snake45]

Twice the SCOTUS has looked at this law as written, and decided that they knew better what the legislators meant than the legislators did when they wrote the law.
They aren't supposed to bend the law to make it fit the Constitution or any particular political objective. They are merely supposed to interpret the law.

This.

We no longer live in a land of law, if the law can mean whatever somebody in power decides it means at that particular moment.

Truly a sad day. One more nail in the coffin of the once-great republic called America.

 

[DavidE]

Given how the Justices involved were advertised when nominated, how the left panicked when they were confirmed, and what they have done since, I wonder what happened in between?

Elections will have to be where the important matters are won. The Court basically is deciding to ignore precedents.

By the way, I looked up Donald Trump's position on Obamacare/Scotuscare, and he wants to toss it out lock, stock and barrel.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

 

[Diamondback]

Simple, what happened... somebody found something compromising on Roberts, like he pulled a Thad Cochran on the opposite side of the farm animal.

Though that shouldn't be particularly effective leverage for an official anymore since Thug Coch-roach openly admitted to having buggered the livestock and still was able to steal a Primary and win a General anyway...

Or maybe there were some shady dealings in the Roberts family's adoptions...

I tell you this, one of my first moves upon taking the Oath in January 2017 if elected would be to dust off FDR's Court-packing plan from the '30s but substitute the most fire-breathing hardcore Libertarian and Conservative jurists I can find. Mark Levin, Andrew Napolitano, and Ted Cruz would be just my first three...

 

[Javlin]

Though that shouldn't be particularly effective leverage for an official anymore since Thug Coch-roach openly admitted to having buggered the livestock and still was able to steal a Primary and win a General anyway...

I am still PO'ed about that election!!I despise both Cochran and Whittaker.A fella was running for mayor down here in Biloxi and at the end of his message was "and backed by the RNC".That made my decision to vote for the other guy real easy an old name associated with the "Dixie Mafia" they have more honor than the RNC.

 

[Tim Burke]

if elected would be to dust off FDR's Court-packing plan from the '30s

Wasn't Constitutional then, isn't now.

Perhaps you could ask, "Who will rid me of these troublesome jurists?"

 

[TommyGunn]

What could be done (theoretically; you'd have to have the right kongress & prez for it to happen) is that kongress could forbid SCOTUS to rule on certain topics.
Like, for example, ah ....... marriage.
Now, I'm not suggesting anyone hold their breath, even when the repukes take over......

 

[CaptainGyro]

Perhaps you could ask, "Who will rid me of these troublesome jurists?"

Ah, Henry II...now there was a guy who knew how to drop a hint.

 

[Diamondback]

I don't seem to recall anything in the Constitution specifying the size of SCOTUS... if memory serves that was by legislation, so in that case all we'd need would be legislation passed creating four new seats.

Four immediate new right-wing firebrands joining Scalia, Thomas and Alito = things start going our way at least 7-6 more regularly... might even help bring peer-pressure to shame that turdsucker Kennedy into line more often.

 

[William R. Moore]

When someone suggests trying to copy FDR, it's time to reconsider your plans.

 

[Skeptic49]

If I was a rep I would impeach the 6 members who cannot read English as "mentally defective."

Geoff
Who is skeptical.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Let's just hope Ginsburg outlives this administration.