Huge Stakes As Supreme Court Takes Third Crack At Obamacare.

[lockedout]

A bunch of people having weapons isn't a well regulated militia..... they will probably lose to a well regulated militia unless those bunch of people are the Expendables

"The Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day)."

[Independent voter]

thanks hubcap now you made me hungry for steak. i hope your happy!

I'll bear that burden.

[Grummgug]

Semantics is the reason why so many legal documents are thousands of pages. Its not just republican or democrat. Its all kinds of people everywhere trying to find an angle.

[Hiricine]

The simple fact is, Obamacare is here to stay, pretty much no matter what. It is already established.

Well it'd certainly be delightful to see the political will to keep it as law if there were people who couldn't afford insurance, had to pay a penalty if they did not have it, and did not have a subsidy to help them pay for it. The hope on the right is that not only does the statute read this way, but the silliness of a subsidy applied this way not only doesn't make sense, is unconstitutional by itself and cannot be separated from the law.

There are also plenty of laws that apply to specific states based on their actions. The drinking age is 21 in all states instead of 18 or 19 because federal funds were made to be allocated only to states with an increased drinking age.

[Rukh]

Its interesting to look at the map. The states that this would totally shit on would be mostly red states. Blue states mostly have done their own insurance exchanges and not gone on the government dole like red states always do.

[Grummgug]

Intent absolutely matters. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment means we can only have guns to form a militia.

What is funny about intent is that for the purposes of defending Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court, Obama's lawyers called it a tax. But when he talks about it to the public, he says its not a tax.

We're in a new world here. The government can now force us to buy things. The way it works is government creates a new tax, and then offer a full exemption from the tax if you buy some product. So in the eyes of the Supreme Court, Obamacare is FIRST a TAX, with a loophole that you are exempt if you buy insurance.

I would call it extortion. But it is law.

In the future, the government could force you to pay a LARGE tax.....but......if you support a democrat policy....if are fully exempt. Or the government could force you to pay a large tax...but...if you support a republican policy....you are exempt.

The republicans might do something like levy a tax on all media outlets....but they are exempt IF they at least 40% of journalists who are registered republicans. Why not?

Anyone that supports how Obamacare has been passed and enacted should support the republicans passing a tax on the media with an exemption if the media hires republicans as journalists. Either both are extortion or both are perfectly fine.

Republicans could pass a new tax on all colleges and universities....with a partially exemption where 40% of the faculty and staff must be registered republicans....with a full exemption if they teach from textbooks approved by Dick Cheney.

Welcome to freedom...Obama style!

[Endus]

What is funny about intent is that for the purposes of defending Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court, Obama's lawyers called it a tax. But when he talks about it to the public, he says its not a tax.

The original bill didn't consider it a tax, which raised constitutional issues. It was amended, making it into a tax, resolving the issue. There's no inconsistency or dishonesty, there.

In the future, the government could force you to pay a LARGE tax.....but......if you support a democrat policy....if are fully exempt. Or the government could force you to pay a large tax...but...if you support a republican policy....you are exempt.

The republicans might do something like levy a tax on all media outlets....but they are exempt IF they at least 40% of journalists who are registered republicans. Why not?

First Amendment says "hi". Plus that nothing about your example here is in any way comparable to the ACA.

Republicans could pass a new tax on all colleges and universities....with a partially exemption where 40% of the faculty and staff must be registered republicans....with a full exemption if they teach from textbooks approved by Dick Cheney.

Again no, because again, First Amendment.

[Rukentuts]

The state, not the states. This is the epitome of grasping at straws.

[Stormdash]

This time, the high court will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit engineered by conservative and libertarian think tanks that claims a handful of words deep within the Affordable Care Act -- “an exchange established by the state” -- makes it illegal for the government to issue tax credits for health insurance in more than 30 states with federal health insurance exchanges.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6793228.html

Their position is that the words in the statute are not an accident and accurately represent the intent of the Congress. The federal government's position is that the Court should construe a broader, unspecified intent that's actually quite contrary to much of the rhetoric and debate at the time that "everybody was supposed to be eligible for a subsidy".

The reason in the statute why it puts subsidy eligibility on the states was to politically pressure the states into creating the exchanges and thereby passing the expense along as well. The plaintiffs here argue that that, among other things, make it clear that it was never the intent of Congress that subsidies be available through a federal exchange.

It's actually a pretty strong argument, but of course, so was the argument that the ACA mandates violated the commerce clause -- and despite a majority of the Court agreeing that they did, the law was salvaged by a de facto judicial rewrite of the ACA as a tax that ironically should have made it improper for the Court to be hearing the case at that time anyway. Which is all to say, just because the plaintiff's position is the one that makes the most laboratory setting legal sense, that doesn't mean the Court won't bail out the ACA again.

[Fahrenheit]

Fucking shocker that the overwhelming majority of the state's involved are red. The depths that certain sections of the Republican party sink to, to harm their own constituents is only matched in the absurdity of those constituents repeatedly voting against their best interests.

[Blur4stuff]

republicans don't have any serious plan to cover people and if obamacare were gone they still wouldn't. arguing about all the little details seems pointless to me. this is about taking coverage away from millions of americans and increasing the financial burden on everyone else.

if conservatives win they'll rejoice over the misery of millions and then do nothing about it

[Wells]

The reason in the statute why it puts subsidy eligibility on the states was to politically pressure the states into creating the exchanges and thereby passing the expense along as well. The plaintiffs here argue that that, among other things, make it clear that it was never the intent of Congress that subsidies be available through a federal exchange.

Do you have a reference to anyone claiming this was how subsidies were supposed to work prior to this lawsuit coming out? Because the people who wrote the law have found the claim laughable.

[Belize]

I guess this is conservatives saying "Third time's a charm!"

[Gumboy]

I don't care if you are the most anti-obamacare person in the world, it is in, the system is in place, and taking it away now would be a massive mistake. That isn't a political argument, but only common sense.


Personally I think Obamacare was kind of a shitty way to go about healthcare in the country, it didn't do anywhere near enough, but good luck getting people to compromise any more.

[Revi]

Somewhat unrelated, but I'm curious. Can the constitution be changed in any way, or only interpreted?

In the Norwegian one we have this:

If experience shows that any part of this Constitution of the
Kingdom of Norway ought to be amended, the proposal to this effect
shall be submitted to the first, second or third Storting after a new
parliamentary election and be publicly announced in print. But it shall
be left to the first, second or third Storting after the following
parliamentary election to decide whether or not the proposed
amendment shall be adopted. Such an amendment must never,
however, contradict the principles embodied in this Constitution, but
solely relate to modifications of particular provisions which do not
alter the spirit of the Constitution, and two thirds of the Storting must
agree with such an amendment.
An amendment to the Constitution adopted in the manner aforesaid
shall be signed by the President and the Secretary of the Storting, and
shall be sent to the King for public announcement in print as an
applicable provision of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway.

Is this also possible under the American constitution?

[Fahrenheit]

Yes. If support is there. We can make amendments to the Constitution. See prohibition and the repeal of said amendment.

[Belize]

Somewhat unrelated, but I'm curious. Can the constitution be changed in any way, or only interpreted?

In the Norwegian one we have this:


Is this also possible under the American constitution?

Well I mean, we don't have a King, so no he can't make a public declaration :P

But, yes the constitution CAN be amended, it just takes a lot and Constitutional Amendments are kept relatively vague, since the U.S. let's the states refine details up to a certain point.

[Revi]

Well I mean, we don't have a King, so no he can't make a public declaration :P

But, yes the constitution CAN be amended, it just takes a lot and Constitutional Amendments are kept relatively vague, since the U.S. let's the states refine details up to a certain point.

Okey, just always heard a lot about the supreme court deals with interpreting the constitution, but never about anything being altered. Our was a bit conservative by todays standards, and have had some parts outright removed.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. If support is there. We can make amendments to the Constitution. See prohibition and the repeal of said amendment.

Ah, didn't realize prohibition was actually a part of the constitution. Didn't that come into effect much later? Was it added and then removed again?

[Rukh]

Okey, just always heard a lot about the supreme court deals with interpreting the constitution, but never about anything being altered. Our was a bit conservative by todays standards, and have had some parts outright removed.

- - - Updated - - -



Ah, didn't realize prohibition was actually a part of the constitution. Didn't that come into effect much later? Was it added and then removed again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_Constitution

Things like freedom of speech and right to arm bears were actually added as amendments, not in the original document.

[Belize]

Okey, just always heard a lot about the supreme court deals with interpreting the constitution, but never about anything being altered. Our was a bit conservative by todays standards, and have had some parts outright removed.

When in dispute, the Supreme Court does decide whether a law is Constitutional or not. However, it has been amended a handful of times. The U.S. started out with 10 bullet points in the Constitution and now has 27, 2 of which are useless because it's Prohibition and removal of Prohibition.