Posted on 03/04/2015 10:30:33 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The libs defense is. “The end justifies the means.” That according to an attorney on Levin. Their usual defense. .
“To me, this case points up problems with passing comprehensive 2000 page laws, which nobody has read.”
It is clear that you are correct. But “progressives” love this sort of bill because it buts enormous power in the hands of administrators. They are controlled by the Exectutive branch, if at all. This concentrates ever more power in the state,and the ability to use it arbitrarily, to favor some over others, to punish those who are out of favor.
It is a reversion to the rule of man over the rule of law, by making the law so voluminous, that only an expert can hope to come close to understanding it.
Divided by what? Which moron was most responsible for passing a brain fart of a law.
Thanks for the clarification.
Sen. Sasse was on Levin yesterday saying just this— “we need to protect those losing their subsidies if this goes down”
What absolute crap holding bilge. The law is bad, poorly written and AS written says what it says and therefore— NO longer Constitutional as it does not apply to all the States.
This is basic stuff, hence the media’s push on the Court and the libs freak out and the RINO’s stepping up to help the dem progressives.
“The Court should rule that the law means what it says “. . . by the States.” And then they 5-4 majority should say that because it is so unfair and treats persons in the States so differently, that the entire Act is unconstitutional and can’t be fixed.
Oldplayer”
That would be a most logical position to take given the Equal standing requirement of the Federal Constitution. That said Washington’s hand picked employees in black robes rarely pass up a chance to write new law from the bench.
It seems unlikely that they would pass up the chance here to modify the faulty act, than actually uphold the Federal constitutional requirement that acts of congress treat all states uniformly.
“If they rule that the federal subsidies the Internal Revenue Service has doled out for Obamacare plans are illegal, millions of people would no longer be able to afford their plans, and the entire law would be crippled.”
None of which should be a consideration, IMHO. Either the law is constitutional, or it is not. It’s not the court’s job to “fix” political problems that come from bad law or striking down a bad law.
Of course, I’m kidding myself if I expect this to be better than a 5-4 vote against. Kennedy or Roberts might vote with Scalia/Alito/Thomas. I don’t think we’ll get both, though I don’t think it impossible both could join with Ginsburg and crew (i.e. 6-3 in favor of upholding the law).
Kennedy’s always been a swing vote, so I can’t gripe too much. Roberts, however, has been a big, big disappointment.
They are bitterly divided over the Constitution, not Obamacare.
Obamacare freebies are needed for Obama’s amnesty illegals dispersal. Without obamacare freebies the illegals are limited to democrat states.
they could rule exchanges illegal and make them all federal.
Very nice and informative. Thank you!
Things that make you go Hmmmmm.
If you don't pay the premiums...it's not "yours".
(That’s a man, baby)
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.