BREAKING>>>>SCOTUS upholds federal Obamacare exchange subsidies in 6-3 vote

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/246117-conservative-groups-urge-gop-to-use-budget-tool-to-repeal-obamacare

Conservative groups: Only Republicans can stop ObamaCare now

 By Rebecca Shabad - 06/25/15 10:44 AM EDT

Conservative groups are urging congressional Republicans to repeal ObamaCare through the budget reconciliation process now that the Supreme Court has upheld a key provision of the healthcare law.

Minutes after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that millions of people can continue receiving subsidies to purchase health insurance under the law, Heritage Action and the Club for Growth immediately issued statements about another path to torpedoing the Affordable Care Act.

“The American people believe both subsidies and mandates are wrong, so it’s now up to Congress to use reconciliation to repeal Obamacare, and Congress should continue to do so until there is a president who is willing to sign that repeal,” Club for Growth President David McIntosh said.

Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham said Americans cannot rely on the high court to “save us from the law.”

“The Republican Party — the party of full repeal — must make the case to every American that they will repeal the law come 2017 and replace it with a plan that drives down the cost of health insurance for all Americans,” Needham said.

Heritage Action spokesman Dan Holler tweeted that Needham believes the GOP must now use reconciliation to reverse the law.

Multiple congressional committees have just under one month — until July 24 — to file deficit-cutting reconciliation measures.

The bicameral GOP budget agreement that passed both chambers in April issued reconciliation instructions to the committees with jurisdiction over ObamaCare. They are the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, as well as the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.

Once they produce the bills, and pass them in the House and Senate, Republicans would have to conference them between the two chambers.

Reconciliation bills would require a presidential signature, and Obama has made clear he would never sign a repeal of his healthcare law.

Democrats used the budget reconciliation process in 2009 to create ObamaCare. 



Another 2016 campaign promise coming......

[Luis Gonzalez]

“The American people believe both subsidies and mandates are wrong, so it’s now up to Congress to use reconciliation to repeal Obamacare, and Congress should continue to do so until there is a president who is willing to sign that repeal.”

What's needed here is blindingly clear.

Set divisions aside and vote straight ticket GOP in 2016.

There is absolutely zero chance that a Democratic Congress with a Democrat in the WH will ever do anything to change this abomination.

The ONLY chance is with GOP majorities in Congress and a Republican President.

All other arguments are nothing more than noise and subterfuge.

The Court has made itself clear. It's up to Congress to fix this.

[rb224315]

The Dread Justice Roberts has struck again.  Never in a million years would I have expected this from a supposed "conservative".  He admits that the law says one thing but his ruling goes against that "most natural reading".

From The Washington Examiner:

"Roberts — who three years ago cast the deciding vote to uphold the healthcare as a whole — gave a nod in his opinion to the King challengers, who had based their argument on how the law's text is structured. The section that says subsidies can be provided through insurance exchanges refers to "exchanges established by the state" without explicitly mentioning exchanges run by the federal government.

That's a "strong argument," Roberts wrote. But he said the law's overall intent requires the court to uphold the subsidies in the end.

"In this instance, the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase," he wrote.

[olde north church]

L'etat c'est moi



[attachment deleted by admin]

[mountaineer]

Roberts, again writing for the majority:
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them"

What an idiotic thing to say. Why overturn any piece of legislation on constitutional grounds, then? After all, Congress passed the  ____ law to improve _____ (fill in the blank, it could be anything). If that's his logic, nothing ever could be found unconstitutional.

[mountaineer]

“After multiple challenges before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” Obama said during a statement in the Rose Garden.

My U.S. Senator, Republican Shelley Moore Capito, wrote on her Facebook page how disappointed she was with the court's decision. At least two moron Dems commented, essentially, that Obamacare is here to stay, get over it. I'm sure they would have told a Jew in 1933 Germany, "Hitler was elected, get over it."

[Luis Gonzalez]

What congress giveth, congress could taketh away. That is where Roberts is coming from.

Wishful thinking "conservatives" hoped the SC would do what congress would not.

Santorum and Obama said that SCOTUS wouldn't have the last word.

Well... here we are.

There's only one option that's viable.

Republicans in the majority in Congress with a Republican in the WH.

The fight comes down to the people.

You're either in this battle, or you're out of it. We're either all standing on the same battle field, or we're defeated.

It's that "time for choosing" time.

Here's my personal pledge.

I will vote for the Republican nominee, at every level, irrespective of who that is, because there is no chance that any Democrat will ever act to repeal anything Obama has done

Can you make that same pledge?

[aligncare]

Obama and the democrats should pen a nice thank you note to W: 

"Thanks for all you did – and thank you especially for Roberts.

 – The Loyal Opposition"

Democrats are saying who needs friends with enemies like this?

[ABX]

Prediction based on the reading of this ruling.
States that did set up exchanges and are now in financial trouble will cancel their exchanges and shift them to the federal exchange now that this ruling says in essence, they aren't responsible, the 'state' can mean any form of government.

[ArneFufkin]

One of the things I argued to the Party elitists and Conservative purists (i.e. Laura Ingraham)  who were relentlessly bashing Bush's preference toward Harriet Miers was that she would be a known and predictable Conservative member of the Court for the duration of her tenure.

I know that her consideration was in his second selection (after Roberts was already installed) and Alito has been a good solid choice but my point was that these candidates considered  "brilliant legal minds" by both the Left and the Right often drift into the liberal "Stockholm Syndrome" caused by non-stop interaction with and fawning over by the Liberal Eastern intelligentsia.   It happened to O'Conner, it happened to Kennedy, it happened immediately with Souter and now it's happening to Roberts.   

We could use a few less "brilliant" weenies and more staunch protectors of the Constitution such as Thomas, Scalia and Alito: As I argued would have been the case with Harriet "She's From SMU???" Miers.

Rising through the male-dominated ranks to become Managing Partner of the largest and most prestigious law firm in Texas was a helluva lot more impressive achievement to me than graduating from some Ivy League cookie cutter Law school and using connections to get political appointments.

[Carling]

The actual and literal word of law means nothing now.  SCOTUS now rules on feelings, and not passed legislation.

That's a wrap, America.  It was a great ride while it lasted. 

[alicewonders]

Prediction based on the reading of this ruling.
States that did set up exchanges and are now in financial trouble will cancel their exchanges and shift them to the federal exchange now that this ruling says in essence, they aren't responsible, the 'state' can mean any form of government.

I think you're right.  Kentucky is already having financial troubles because of Kynect. 

I'm very disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling.  It was not a ruling based on legality - but based on political ramifications.  We're fu(ked. 

[ArneFufkin]

Santorum and Obama said that SCOTUS wouldn't have the last word.

Well... here we are.

There's only one option that's viable.

Republicans in the majority in Congress with a Republican in the WH.

The fight comes down to the people.

You're either in this battle, or you're out of it. We're either all standing on the same battle field, or we're defeated.

It's that "time for choosing" time.

Here's my personal pledge.

I will vote for the Republican nominee, at every level, irrespective of who that is, because there is no chance that any Democrat will ever act to repeal anything Obama has done

Can you make that same pledge?

You know where I stand on that Luis.       You use the primary to get the most conservative Republican that can be elected, and you go to the general knowing that ANY Republican is better than EVERY Democrat in every instance.   

The days of folks with "D" behind their names like Ralph Hall, Sam Nunn etc. are over.   There isn't a single Democrat now that has one redeeming virtue to any Conservative - and third party poseurs and their shenanigans are simply repugnant at this time and given the critical historic stakes at hand.

[mountaineer]

We're fu(ked.

I'm feeling particularly f'ed right now. My husband's job was eliminated and so his employer-provided insurance will end. If he chooses to retire, rather than seek unemployment compensation, he can go on Medicare because he turns 65 in a few days.  But I will be without health insurance because I'm younger and not eligible for Medicare. Obamacare, here I come!    :nometalk:

[Carling]

What an idiotic thing to say. Why overturn any piece of legislation on constitutional grounds, then? After all, Congress passed the  ____ law to improve _____ (fill in the blank, it could be anything). If that's his logic, nothing ever could be found unconstitutional.

This is the best and most accurate interpretation of Roberts' ludicrous and tortured "logic" that I've read.

Well done!

[alicewonders]

I'm feeling particularly f'ed right now. My husband's job was eliminated and so his employer-provided insurance will end. If he chooses to retire, rather than seek unemployment compensation, he can go on Medicare because he turns 65 in a few days.  But I will be without health insurance because I'm younger and not eligible for Medicare. Obamacare, here I come!    :nometalk:

Ooh, sorry to hear about your husband's job.  I have the same problem as you do - my husband wants to retire in two years when he turns 65, but because I am four years younger than him - I would be without health insurance when he goes on Medicare.  It makes me "sick" to think about it - pun intended!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Roberts, again writing for the majority:
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them" 

If I could, I would impeach this SOB for his barefaced political crusade.   

[Lando Lincoln]

I will vote for the Republican nominee, at every level, irrespective of who that is, because there is no chance that any Democrat will ever act to repeal anything Obama has done

Can you make that same pledge?

All the heavy lifting is to be done in the primaries.  Once done...

I so pledge.

[PzLdr]

What's needed here is blindingly clear.

Set divisions aside and vote straight ticket GOP in 2016.

There is absolutely zero chance that a Democratic Congress with a Democrat in the WH will ever do anything to change this abomination.

The ONLY chance is with GOP majorities in Congress and a Republican President.

All other arguments are nothing more than noise and subterfuge.

The Court has made itself clear. It's up to Congress to fix this.

Boehner's too busy hunting heads, and McConnell is McConnell. The GOP would do better with Stan and Ollie, or Bud And Lou. At least then we could laugh...

[mystery-ak]

All the heavy lifting is to be done in the primaries.  Once done...

I so pledge.

reluctantly agree....I still believe any Repub is better than any Dem....[but getting hard to tell the difference]

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/246145-hatch-praises-roberts-as-remarkable-judge-and-tremendous-human


June 25, 2015 - 12:29 PM EDT
Hatch praises Roberts as ‘remarkable judge’
By Jordain Carney

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Thursday praised Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as a “remarkable” and “tremendous” jurist who wrote a “clever” opinion upholding a key provision of ObamaCare.

"All I can say is that the chief justice is a remarkable judge. He's a tremendous human being. I have a tremendous confidence in him and I believe in him. I differ with him on this opinion," Hatch said from the Senate floor. "On the other hand, it is a very clever opinion, and I have to say only a clever judge could have written it as well."

Roberts authored the 6-3 decision handed down earlier Thursday that upheld federal healthcare insurance subsides under the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is a major victory for the Obama administration.

Hatch said that he suspected the court would uphold the law because "it's a big enough bill that a really clever judge could find some way of tying in and justifying the decision that they made today."

He added that he has "tremendous respect" for Roberts, who he believed "used his talents to uphold ObamaCare."

It's the second time Roberts has authored a Supreme Court ruling that upheld President Obama's Affordable Care Act. In 2012, he wrote the court's decision that upheld ObamaCare as constitutional.

Hatch said while he's "had colleagues bad-mouth the chief justice because of his vote in the original case, which was the deciding vote … I've never really found fault with that. I felt like was more interested in not having a 5-4 decision."

Despite his praise for Roberts, the Utah Republican disavowed the court's Thursday ruling, saying that justices "deduced to rule against common sense and the plain meaning of statutory language."

[mystery-ak]

Boehner's too busy hunting heads, and McConnell is McConnell. The GOP would do better with Stan and Ollie, or Bud And Lou. At least then we could laugh...

If that ain't the truth..

[mountaineer]

reluctantly agree....I still believe any Repub is better than any Dem....[but getting hard to tell the difference]

Ditto. I will vote for the Republican nominee in Nov. 2016, but chances are I'll have to hold my nose while doing it.

[Paladin]

I believe Roberts was merely following what he learned in law school from his favorite professor and foremost legal mentor:

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.

Incidentally, I heard someone comment the Republican leadership is secretly pleased with the decision because it means they don't have to come up with some alternative. I think that's probably correct.

[Carling]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/246145-hatch-praises-roberts-as-remarkable-judge-and-tremendous-human


June 25, 2015 - 12:29 PM EDT
Hatch praises Roberts as ‘remarkable judge’
By Jordain Carney

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Thursday praised Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as a “remarkable” and “tremendous” jurist who wrote a “clever” opinion upholding a key provision of ObamaCare.

"All I can say is that the chief justice is a remarkable judge. He's a tremendous human being. I have a tremendous confidence in him and I believe in him. I differ with him on this opinion," Hatch said from the Senate floor. "On the other hand, it is a very clever opinion, and I have to say only a clever judge could have written it as well."

Roberts authored the 6-3 decision handed down earlier Thursday that upheld federal healthcare insurance subsides under the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is a major victory for the Obama administration.

Hatch said that he suspected the court would uphold the law because "it's a big enough bill that a really clever judge could find some way of tying in and justifying the decision that they made today."

He added that he has "tremendous respect" for Roberts, who he believed "used his talents to uphold ObamaCare."

It's the second time Roberts has authored a Supreme Court ruling that upheld President Obama's Affordable Care Act. In 2012, he wrote the court's decision that upheld ObamaCare as constitutional.

Hatch said while he's "had colleagues bad-mouth the chief justice because of his vote in the original case, which was the deciding vote … I've never really found fault with that. I felt like was more interested in not having a 5-4 decision."

Despite his praise for Roberts, the Utah Republican disavowed the court's Thursday ruling, saying that justices "deduced to rule against common sense and the plain meaning of statutory language."

Ignoring the written word is "clever?"  Ignoring Gruber confirming those words numerous times is "clever?" Any simpleton could do it.