HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 


Go down 

Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-04-24
Age : 34
Location : Lubbock Texas

PostSubject: SCOTUScare   June 25th 2015, 12:13 pm

Justice Scalia says it well. I just dont understand how they found it legal.


“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,'” Scalia said.

“Normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved,” Scalia said.


He said the intent of lawmakers couldn’t have been to pick and choose, because that would destroy the fundamental economics of Obamacare — which couldn’t have been the intention of those who wrote the law.

“The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a state’s individual insurance market into a death spiral,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Just because the a decision has a negative effect for a law does not make it constitutional or legal. A poorly written bill is a poorly written bill, you cant say they meant for this or meant for that, the simple words are written how they are written. It seems more now than ever that Justice Roberts is far more a politician than a court justice. I really think Roberts is scared of the president and that his legacy would be more negative if he didnt uphold this law. Thats the only thing I can think after his last two ways of twisting the law to uphold it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: General Topics :: Around the Keg-O-Rator-
Jump to: