Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies
From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.
The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, as opponents contended.
Only Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.
Stay tuned to Ricochet for commentary on the ruling, including an appearance from Richard Epstein on today’s forthcoming Ricochet Podcast.
John Roberts is a liar and a coward, and the Supreme Court should be abolished.
Liar? Is that “lawyer” with a southern accent? Coward? Well, yeah. Supreme Court abolished? No need — majority has effectively done that.
Can I think with any consistency that this is a horrible ruling and be somewhat relieved by it at the same time?
The damage was done by the last ruling, and there was no way this would end well.
Where’s Harriet Miers when you need her…
Obamacare: A fraudulent bill, supported by fraudulent arguments (e.g., “you can keep your doctor”), passed through fraudulent means, and supported by fraudulent SCOTUS decisions. Four for four. Perfection in government has been achieved.
Question for Richard Epstein. Reading Scalia’s dissent, is this the first time the term “jiggery-pokery” has been used in a Supreme Court decision?
I hope Richard Epstein talks about how Burwell and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project (also released today) affects our legacy of Federalism. Is it now dead or only on life support?
It’s always been about breaking the system irreparably and creating such chaos that the clamor for single payer will be irresistible.
I have to laugh when I hear that because of the high cost of healthcare, subsidies are the only way people can afford it. Therefore, the solution is more subsidies. (Never mind that it’s crap like Obamacare that drives up the cost.)
Except that last year when our full-time staff was about to get tossed into Obamacare, we discovered that not only was it far more costly even WITH subsidies, some people didn’t even qualify. One co-worker’s monthly premiums would have gone up 300%.
Thankfully, the powers that be relented. But I suspect they’ll try it again this year.
I actually agree with the majority and the dissent. The law does seem to assume in places that both state and federally established exchanges will receive tax credits. This does in fact create ambiguity as to whether the tax credits were meant to be excluded from federally established exchanges. Point to the majority.
However, I also agree with the dissent that it is not the role of the court to try and clear up the ambiguity by deliberately ignoring the plain language which is causing the confusion. Point for the dissent.
The law should be sent back to Congress with a giant stamp on it saying, “This doesn’t make any freaking sense you morons, it is literally impossible to implement this absurdly worded monstrosity. We cannot even come to a conclusion as to the constitutionality of this circular square of a law because it is truly nonsensical. Fix this immediately.”
Just so. It was clear early on that Obamacare “as written” (if anyone knows what that is any longer) was unsustainable in the long run. The Progressive game was always to let enough time pass before the crash to have everyone give up on free market solutions. And they have succeeded. There will be no roll-back. There will only be progressively more patches and political expedient “interpretations” until the medical industry (including “private” insurance collaborators) is fully bled out and digestible by civil servants.
What does the political class care about this anyway? This was an easy decision. They’ll just exempt themselves from Obamacare. And they’re wealthy enough to get whatever healthcare they want anyway.
They’re too busy worrying about acquiring and retaining power to care what happens to the citizen class.
They’re set. Their families are set. Their pals and sycophants will be set. We’ll all be screwed.
Hmmm, I was responding to a post from the Ricochet Editor’s Desk, which disappeared when I posted. Hmm.
The pretense that we now live under the rule of law is insulting to all free people: when the words in a “law” mean whatever they need to mean to support government action, when in effect the rule of law does not apply to agents of the government, then there is no longer rule of law. It is a sham to cow the weak and powerless. We are all servants to our government masters unless we throw off these chains of tyranny that have been cast over us. Any man who sits quietly and does not resist is no longer free, having sold his liberty for transient comfort that extends no further than the whim of his masters.
The rule of law requires faithful execution: the maxim “fiat justitia ruat caelem” (“let justice be done though the heavens fall”) is essential. If not, then we are all subjects to the whims of the powerful. Or, put another way in A Man for All Seasons:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
John Roberts has demonstrated no fidelity to the rule of law; he is an agent of the ruling class. The mere phrase ruling class should disgust all liberty-minded people, but that is what America finds itself with today. We must throw off our chains or condemn ourselves and our posterity to servitude underthis ruling class that cares little for our country and less for their subjects and doubles the insult by ruling incompetently. Loyalty to a just King is a sentiment I can understand, although I of course reject it as a man preferring to govern himself. However, loyalty to a tyrant, whether singular or collective, is only worthy of contempt.
We all must decide whether we have enough dignity to stand on our feet and fight for freedom, or bow down to our knees and live forevermore in shame, having forsaken our free birthrights. I choose freedom, will you?
The federal government no longer represents a substantial number of Americans. The Democrats are increasingly Maoist tyrants and the Republican Party is comprised of useless, careerist cowards.
Yes, I noticed that as well.
Since the GOP gained control of both houses, it’s been cool watching them work to overturn Obamacare as so many of them promised.
Oh wait . . . they actually haven’t done jack squat, have they?
When you can no longer count on the courts for protection, it is truly time for revolution.
Given that we on the right have no good alternative that we can get signed into law, this ruling probably helps us.
Yeah, I prefer intellectual coherence of Scalia’s dissent. But if the ACA’s exchanges were declared unconstitutional, then we’d have to find a way to get health insurance to people thrown off the exchanges. And I’d bet, dollars to doughnuts, that Obama would veto any GOP passed bill to provide relief. We need a legislative fix, not a judicial one. We need to win in 2016.
Well, now this hot potato is squarely in the Republicans’ lap. They’ll either do what they were elected to do, or they won’t.
I see that John Boehner is vowing ‘to keep up the fight .’
BWAHAHAHA !
It’s still symbolism at this point, but even a symbol might be a reasonable gift after this decision.
It’s cute how you think Republicans would actually do that.
They are not subsidies they are tax credits. Most of the 8.7 million people already had health insurance and didn’t ask to have their old policies made illegal by micro-managing over-regulation. The tax credits do not make insurance affordable as net net they are paying more for their insurance. Wait times at emergency rooms have gone up so those who desperately need care have not been served.
I have no objection to giving people tax credits towards their health care costs. I object to 2600 pages of law and 90,000+ pages of regulation that are ill-conceived and badly administered.
The Court is fatuous, craven, and spineless to a degree unimaginable. Aside from the massive evidence of the unworkability of the law itself, Obama was re-elected by a tiny majority with serious campaign irregularities. The Democrats have lost the Senate in a massive defeat. The whole Gruber fiasco has been exposed. What more does the Court need to get in touch with its status as the third branch of government? We now effectively have one branch of government. Boehner & McConnell remind one of General McClellan during the Civil War. No matter how superior the Army of the Potomac was in men, arms, training, & supply, the General could not defeat the enemy and continued to ask for ever more.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito still have a soul. I hope the country can hang on to its soul also.
Regards,
Jim
Boy howdy. You know things are getting serious when Yankees start calling for revolution. ;-)
Wrong thread.
Remember when Roberts said in confirmation that (to paraphrase) his job was to call balls and strikes but there was objective strike zone He was either lying through his teeth or he has completely changed his mind about there being an objective strike zone.
EDIT:
Here is the original quote
Seems like this decision was a favor made out of pure fear and one that required him to step into the batter’s box.
Ummm, what? If they found the other way I assume you would love the Supreme Court.
If there is a “strike zone”, it’s not defined by principles like the rule of law. Based on his actions, it appears to be defined by the interests of a certain sort of people versus those of others. He has cast off the traditions that granted him his grand position; he is a scoundrel.
Wrong. As usual.
I am no court expert or legal scholar, but it seems to me that Roberts may have changed his vote on this so that he could write and tailor the majority opinion more narrowly than one of the liberal justices would have. Kennedy, as usual, was the squish here. Had Roberts joined Scalia et al it wouldn’t have made a difference because Kennedy had already thrown in with the libs. Changing his vote may have been a sacrifice to make sure there wasn’t some even worse moonbattery enshrined in the majority opinion.
Or Roberts is a spineless and feckless crapweasel. Who knows?