Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you already read the majority's opinion(s)? Because it's 47 pages long, I was going to wait until I had some free time this afternoon to read the whole thing. Maybe you're a legal eagle?
I read the syllabus, which explains the reasoning behind the opinion (haven't had time to read the entire opinion).
I'm not an attorney but agree with lenora. Almost nothing is currently available online. I want to read it as well as attorneys on TV made the specific point that while Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the law, his written, strong opinion apparently said there could be changes to the ACA. Who knows what that means this early without the documents? Everyone will be learning more as the day progresses.
Death blow to any possibility of single payer. Insurance companies will continue to make record profits andwill be able to withstand any movement towards single payer.
This is a good thing for Americans in the majority of states that the exchanges were set by the federal government (including Arizona) where those who need subsidies could not afford the monthly payments for it but couldn't get onto Medicaid (ACCHS in Arizona.) If they lost those, I think you would have an angry electorate voting out Republicans in the state legislatures and the US Congress, especially if they couldn't do anything to fix them.
It's amusing, but not surprising, that Justice Scalia dissents. Why? Because Scalia goes endlessly on about intent as the all-important factor in the interpretation of the law. Well, the intent of this law was and is clear. It was so clear that for years, Republicans did not dispute the intent, until they eventually stumbled upon the disingenuous excuse put forth in this failed case. The drafting of the law was poorly worded, but Scalia is all about intent.
Except when he doesn't like the intent - and then he finds an excuse to ignore his very own oft-proclaimed method of jurisprudence.
Kudos to the six Justices, including Reagan appointee Kennedy and Bush appointee Roberts. Maybe someday Republicans will figure out how to appoint Justices that actually agree with them.
But really, for all the teeth-gnashing you'll see by Republicans on television today, most of them are secretly breathing a huge sigh of relief even as they serve up plenty of faux-anger for consumption by their gullible flock.
No way single payer will pass now. ACA has made the insurers too powerful. Huge profits and money to bribe the politicians will prevail. This decision has solidified ACA and will now even prevent Republicans from fighting against it.
Single payer is dead.
It's amusing, but not surprising, that Justice Scalia dissents. Why? Because Scalia goes endlessly on about intent as the all-important factor in the interpretation of the law. Well, the intent of this law was and is clear. It was so clear that for years, Republicans did not dispute the intent, until they eventually stumbled upon the disingenuous excuse put forth in this failed case. The drafting of the law was poorly worded, but Scalia is all about intent.
Except when he doesn't like the intent - and then he finds an excuse to ignore his very own oft-proclaimed method of jurisprudence.
Kudos to the six Justices, including Reagan appointee Kennedy and Bush appointee Roberts. Maybe someday Republicans will figure out how to appoint Justices that actually agree with them.
But really, for all the teeth-gnashing you'll see by Republicans on television today, most of them are secretly breathing a huge sigh of relief even as they serve up plenty of faux-anger for consumption by their gullible flock.
No way single payer will pass now. ACA has made the insurers too powerful. Huge profits and money to bribe the politicians will prevail. This decision has solidified ACA and will now even prevent Republicans from fighting against it.
Single payer is dead.
Sadly yes, the case would have needed to be struck down (though there is the House of Representative lawsuit) for single-payer to be an option. That is because this just fuels the Republican base. The Democrat base would be fueled by those that would have lost their subsidies for Obamacare because their state didn't want to expand Medicaid and/or create a state-run exchange.
It's amusing, but not surprising, that Justice Scalia dissents.
Scaliaism of the day: jiggery-pokery
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
