Posted on 06/25/2015 9:40:57 AM PDT by Starman417
John Roberts is a liar.
Acting as Obama's champion for the second time, The Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare.
From the ruling:
The argument that the phrase “established by the State” would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive. This Court’s “preference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute.”Roberts has interpreted the law to mean something other than what is written in order to save it. At one time he promised not to do that.Lamie v. United States Trustee
, 540 U. S. 526, 536. And rigorous application of thatcanon does not seem a particularly useful guide to a fair constructionof the Affordable Care Act, which contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. The Court nevertheless must do its best, “bear-ing in mind the ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’ ”
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA
, 573 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 9–15. (c) Given that the text is ambiguous, the Court must look to the broader structure of the Act to determine whether one of Section 36B’s “permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”
United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.
, 484 U. S. 365, 371. Here, the statutory scheme compels the Court to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid. Under petitioners’ reading, the Act would not work in a State with a Federal Exchange. As they see it, one of the Act’s three major reforms—the tax credits—would not apply. And a second major reform—the cov-erage requirement—would not apply in a meaningful way, because so many individuals would be exempt from the requirement without the tax credits. If petitioners are right, therefore, only one of the Act’s three major reforms would apply in States with a Federal Exchange.The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage re-quirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market intoa death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to op-erate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.Pp. 15–19.
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”Yet that is exactly what they did. They protected the political choices. Somehow all the Gruber evidence, which made absolutely clear that the law was written intentionally to be extortionary, meant nothing in the end.“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Congress no longer has any purpose
Boehner and McConnell can go back to sleep now.
they have gay pictures of John Roberts and he did not go through the proper legal paperwork in order to adopt his kids.
He`s being blackmailed.
So we don’t have to follow them, correct?
What he has done is declare that the Federal government is no longer under the US Constitution. Without that we fall back to the Declaration of Independence.
I knew from the first sentence where this was going..... “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act grew out of a long history of failed health insurance reform.”......
No, he’s just another sucky appointee made by the Bush family. Remember Souter?
But I thought being ghey was a kewl thing. Maybe they found pictures of him holding a confederate flag?
Chief in-Justice John RobsUS again. He sucks— how come Alito wasn’t appointed chief justice? Too much like the late Robert Bork I guess. Its Clintons and Bammy’s Court with all their hacks seated solidly left. Pox on them too.
This country is toast. Evil has won (temporarily).
He`s being blackmailed.
Yep.
5.56mm
So my question is, what are we going to do about it? Seriously. We’re excellent at pi$$ing and moaning about it, but thus far, we don’t do a damned thing.
bump
I don’t see Roberts so much as a “liar” here as a cop out artist.
He specifically says that the law was designed to avoid “death spirals”. If one believes that the death spirals are inevitable regardless, and killing the subsidies would only hasten them, then when they do happen SCOTUS has absolved itself from any blame.
Thats what I think Roberts real motivation is here. He just does it at terrible cost for the overall rule of law.
Roberts is interpreting law the same way liberal preachers interpret the scriptures. I’ve always pondered the idea that civil government manifests the spiritual condition of the country.
Show me the man and I will show you the crime now becomes show me the law and I will show you how it was intended.
I wish they would go to sleep and not wake up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.