Posted on 08/22/2016 1:52:36 PM PDT by Kaslin
In the case of King v. Burwell, decided by the Supreme Court in June of 2015, President Obama won the day by convincing six justices that Obamacare would collapse if he lost. The case involved the so-called "individual mandate," which imposes a financial penalty on those who neglect to buy health insurance. To many observers, the wording of Affordable Care Act seemed to impose the financial penalty only in states where a state exchange had been set up, not in states where the federal exchange operated by default.
At that time, only 16 states (and the District of Columbia) had set up state exchanges; the federal exchange covered the remaining 34 states. Thus, the specter was presented of no financial penalty for not buying health insurance in the 34 states covered only by the federal exchange. The president argued forcefully that, absent the penalty, healthy individuals in those 34 states might well choose not to buy insurance. Instead, only the sick would buy insurance, which would send the health insurance system into a death spiral and destroy Obamacare.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the president's argument that, despite doubts about the text of Obamacare, the financial penalty is vitally necessary to avoid a death spiral. Roberts therefore opined that the financial penalty applies not only in states that established state exchanges (as the statute says), but also in states where individuals are covered only by the federal exchange. To many observers, the decision seemed to be purely result-oriented – rescuing Obamacare from a death spiral – rather than drawn from the text of the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The Supreme Court often moonlights as the Secret Protector Of The President’s Legacy.
Is “Hoodwinked” the new way of saying “Blackmailed”?
Just like our Constitution is written.
A totally left wing partisan Congress and Senate pass a monstrous law that nationalized 10% of GDP and the SCOTUS is there whenever it needs to be modified...
The bigger problem then wasn’t Obama. It was the damned court even listening to a specious argument like “Obamacare might fail if you uphold the constitution”. Obamacare had/ has no constitutional right to exist in the first place! (As the court’s pathetic contortioning makes obvious) — I think Obama’s puppetmeister had/ has something on a couple of the “justices”
Not hard hoodwinking a bunch of folks who were only lawyers.
Math is most definitely not their friend.
Nor business.
Or finance.
And Roberts was apparently hell-bent on making sure the Obamacare death spiral never happened.
Also, in U.S. vs Mark, the Supreme Court agreed with Mark- that all adult citizens in U.S. must purchase one hand gun each year. It is a mandate.
The US government is rotten to the core and has been for generations.
Hoodwinked my ass. We knew almost exactly how each justice would vote and it was nearly a done deal, THEN, Roberts turned and no one knows why. His opinion was convoluted and contrived. It really makes no sense especially when you look at his past. There is only speculation as to why he turned and I’m in the camp that says obama got to him somehow. That’s the only thing that makes sense.
Exactly! Well said!
“His opinion was convoluted and contrived.”
Which one? The one he wrote for the victors or the one he wrote for the dissent?
What the hell does the consequences of an imperfect law have to do with Constitutional Law.
I do not know how they got to Chief Justice Roberts, but I know they did. Chief Justice Roberts is a man that should in history be placed next to Benedict Arnold.
Chief Justice Roberts betrayed the Constitution of the United States. He should be despised and had earned a place in infamy.
Not to defend The Constitution as written is an act of treason. There are areas of contitutinal law that are vague and thus an area of interpretain. Obama Care was not vague nor uncertain. Chief Justice Roberts did not interpret law but in effect wrote law from the bench.
The only thing between law and tyranny is the United States Constitution. Justice Roberts has decided on the side of Judicial Tyranny.
He is a man worthy of great contempt and scorn. He abandoned his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. He is worthy of nothing except contempt!!!!!
18 year old soldiers will put their life on the line in battle, they risk all and sometimes lose all. This contemptible man John Roberts would not. He is not a good man.
An 18 year old soldier on the front lines is many many many times the man of John Roberts.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek neither your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
I think chief justice Roberts forgot to read Samuel Adams.
I am ahead. :)
Exactly. Roberts' ruling was purely political, just like those of his liberal colleagues invariably are. The Constitution was the last thing on his mind, which yet again highlighted his contempt for it.
They weren’t hoodwinked. They were in on it.
You can get an exemption if you “received a shutoff notice from a utility company”. How hard would that be to arrange?
“...hoodwinked...”??? I don’t think so. Either roberts hates the Rule of Law and Individual Freedom or he was compromised...or both.
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.