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.
Now for something completely pie in the sky: Wouldn't it have been great if the SC was able to order Congress back to work to rewrite the Law correctly to say what they intended (with the withholding of their pay until it was done). I would've loved to see 500 representatives walking back to work bitching and complaining the whole way there.
And...the only correct and constitutional action would have been for Congress to "reconsider" the ACA law and make that change to the language. SCOTUS does not have the authority to change anything...they "swear an oath" to ONLY rule on the constitutionality of a law...PERIOD!
What does that have to do with what Congress understood in 2010, when they were actually voting on the bill?
Because, the subject under consideration here is legislative intent, and whether SCOTUS was in error when it ruled that the legislature (Congress in this case) intended that premium subsidies would be available only to those purchasing insurance policies through a state exchange.
Do I really have to explain the term "legislative intent" to you? In case I do, what it means is what the legislature understood the bill did at the time they voted on it.
Before finding a justification for the ruling in nebulous 'legislative intent, Roberts and Kennedy had to find excuses to reject at least two superior rules of statutory construction --- the plain language of the law and the legislature doesn't use superfluous language. Even when looking at 'intent,' the Court generally uses what was actually said in legislative debate; not in this case.
This is wonderful precedent. The more 'inartful drafting' and the less careful deliberation given to what's passed, the better off you are with Roberts and Kennedy.
So, because something doesn't go your way the justices MUST have been paid. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Well, I had believed that a majority of our Justices are intelligent, moral and ethical. I still cannot believe some of them got stupid overnight. Therefore, I have to think they were either bribed (which I do not believe) or "compromised" by something like Chicago Mafia...possibly threatening to kill family as they are known to have done for decades or more!
And...the only correct and constitutional action would have been for Congress to "reconsider" the ACA law and make that change to the language. SCOTUS does not have the authority to change anything...they "swear an oath" to ONLY rule on the constitutionality of a law...PERIOD!
There was no constitutional issue at question in this case. That would have been the previous one. The only issue was whether the administration was correctly interpreting the intent of Congress in carrying out the ACA. This was a no-brainer decision and the court got it right. If politics were not involved it would have been 9-0 instead of 6-3.
O.k. so my wife and I will be moving to Mesa, AZ 85205. I checked the cost of health coverage (we are covered at the moment but won`t be next year) and the cheapest rate is around $450 with a $13,500 deductible. I`m 57 and the wife 53, non-smokers, no dependents and a modified adjusted gross income income for the both of us around $20,000 a year.
$450 a month/13 grand deductible isn`t health coverage.
It`s more in line with catastrophe insurance which comes with a high monthly premium.
There was no constitutional issue at question in this case. That would have been the previous one. The only issue was whether the administration was correctly interpreting the intent of Congress in carrying out the ACA. This was a no-brainer decision and the court got it right. If politics were not involved it would have been 9-0 instead of 6-3.
"Interpretation" is not acceptable at SCOTUS level. Plain English is not to be "interpreted, but taken as written and passed by Congress and signed to POTUS...PERIOD!
My favorite part of reading "conservative" objections to the ACA is that in pointing out the law's many flaws they are effectively making the argument for either a government insurance option or single payer.
Or just letting people choose between bankruptcy or death. I guess that's also an option.
There was no constitutional issue at question in this case. That would have been the previous one. The only issue was whether the administration was correctly interpreting the intent of Congress in carrying out the ACA. This was a no-brainer decision and the court got it right. If politics were not involved it would have been 9-0 instead of 6-3.
"Interpretation" is not acceptable at SCOTUS level. Plain English is not to be "interpreted, but taken as written and passed by Congress and signed to POTUS...PERIOD!
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.
