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.
Published in Law
So true. And what contempt they seem to have for us.
I don’t really know what to make of this decision. But I will say this about the “Rule of Law” – when the law makers pass laws that are incomprehensible, and cannot be trusted to fix the resulting problems when they arise, then I doubt that there is anything the Supreme Court can do about it within the Rule of Law. No matter how they decided this case, the Rule of Law was guaranteed to be a loser.
A plan depends so much on the President — and the makeup of Congress after the election. Maybe Paul Ryan could get the Republicans to unite around something now, but they followed that strategy on Medicare last time around, and what did that accomplish? I expect they’ll let the eventual nominee take the lead.
Probably, the best-case scenario is a Republican running and winning on repeal and some very general principles. And then we get messy negotiations. Partly it depends on the makeup of the Senate… partly it depends on the President, his priorities, and his ability to convince Senators to take tough votes.
They could be out there talking about the damage that Ocare / SCOTUScare will do to healthcare and financial system. But they don’t (and won’t)
And they could be out there talking about the ‘blessings of liberty’ and the blessings of limited government, as well as the risks to liberty and prosperity that comes with a giant entitlement-burdened government. But they don’t (and won’t).
Epic Fail.
At what point of erosion is the systemic problem so advanced that the system is no longer worth saving? I don’t know that we’re there yet (in my mind), but some come across as if there is no point at which razing the whole system to the foundation and rebuilding the structure becomes the appropriate option.
The system may be a problem, but it isn’t the problem. Human nature is the problem. If you tried to rebuild, you would have to deal with human nature even in the process of rebuilding.
Does our society today look like one likely to come up with a better system than the one the Founders created? Sure, some conservatives might have a few new good ideas, a few adaptions better suited to the 21st century — but there’s no real reason to expect that they’d be the ones doing the rebuilding.
All the more so, if they did the razing.
I can see the next six three decision when the Republicans actually repeal Obamacare, I know I am dreaming here, and the President signs the law so that Obamacare is dead. Then the Democrats challenge the repeal in court and the Supreme court rules the repeal was unconstitutional because too many people depend on it. So they reinstate Obamacare. Why wouldn’t they, they just ruled that the Administrative state can overrule congress! With this Supreme Court there would have been no Iran-Contra scandal Reagan would have just ruled that by banning funding to the Contras the congress was in fact authorizing it.
Ben Franklin:
The founders built as close to ideal a system as has ever been constructed. Human nature has corrupted its operation, perhaps to the point where we must start over. If we start over with the Constitution exactly as it is today (sans every law, regulation, and interpretation added to it) we would make great strides towards a restored liberty. We don’t need a better constitution; we need the constitution we already have. The conundrum, however, is the question of whether or not the people are capable of such liberty. Baltimore says no, Charleston says yes.
The takers danced outside the court in celebration. Now let them live in the queue.
What does the phrase “Rule of Law” when the plain meaning of the text of a law is completely ignored?
I agree the Rule of Law was in trouble before this decision, but after the two Obamacare cases, I don’t see how anyone can still believe the Rule of Law has any objective meaning.
I will say, the post”Rule of Law” world will be a boon for lawyers. The plain text of the law now only applies if you hire a politically connected lawyer to defend your side (and a necessary but not sufficient requirement for”politically connected” is left-leaning).
King Prawn. One recommendation. Start over with the Constitution plus Bill of Rights, not the one we have now. Every amendment written since by lesser men mucked it up.
There are a few amendments worth keeping regarding voting, but the 16th and 17th should surely go. Burn those and urinate on the ashes.
If you call for a revolution now remember that you won’t necessarily be the one writing the new system. And it is foolhardy to think that this generation, even this generation of conservatives, will craft a better system than the one we were gifted.
The better solution is to take control of the system we have and bring it back to its roots.
So the only revolution you are calling for could be in large part accomplished simply by replacing every other justice on the Court with a Clarence Thomas clone.
More seriously, the way California is governed says no, the way Texas is governed says yes — and they’re both part of the country. If we can push back hard enough, we might be able to create enough space for Texas and South Carolina and maybe even Wisconsin and New Mexico to flourish. Maybe only for a little longer, maybe for many years. But we’re responsible for how we use our time — not for how long it lasts.
I don’t see a way forward on that. Even when “conservatives” or republicans have taken control of the system through elections we just made it worse. Just imagine the damage Bush would have done had GWOT not intervened, and I really like Bush.
Provided they are willing to declare the entire administrative state unconstitutional, yes.
We no longer have the one we were gifted. It was sold for a mess o’ pottage long ago.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects, often the same guys who solicited and received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations over the course of three electoral seasons to repeal
ObamaCareRobertsCare, will speak (as Boehner does at the sitting of every new House of Representatives) of the Abominable Care Act as the law of the land in public and solicit donations to operate as a political “fixer” focusing on 2-3 obvious breakages among the thosands. Most Rs have tried to make this transition in the last two cycles only to be beaten back to an insincere repeal stance to pop the donation numbers.With Wall Street renting both parties and steering them into a happy pagan death dive, it is time to recognize that Roberts’ court is acting within the Washington Republican tradition in the Burwell decision. Wall Street has been the biggest fan of RobertsCare from the get go, seeing it as the off-ramp for their own unfair health care burdens. FDR put companies in the position of pagan patriarchs or feudal lords, meting out benefits structurally denied to free men not living under the flag of OPM or DoD or IBM or GM. And Republicans are threatened on the Big Donor front by the pay to play ethos of their opposition. An ethos that is becoming increasingly bipartisan.
So, again, anyone with conscientious objections to RobertsCare may need to look beyond the Parties of Wall Street to free their families and countrymen.
Do you honestly believe that if a Republican is elected president and the GOP remains in control of Congress that there will be a repeal of Obamacare?
The Fair Housing decision today is far worse, and more damaging to the fabric of the nation, than the Obamacare subsidies decisions.
This is just another sign post on the road to oblivion for our beloved country. Every Dem senator and rep who voted for this monstrosity should have their name permanently emblazoned on a wall of shame, right after they are compelled to answer the question of why they voted for such a poorly written bill.
John Roberts is clearly a Progressive, which shows how the judiciary of this country is just as infected as academia and the media. No way Obamacare gets repealed – it will be with us forever, just like every other bad federal program ever passed into law.
Drew is correct. We don’t have to create a new system. We just have to re-establish our old one as the law of the land. Elections no longer matter on a federal level. It’s time to start, how shall we say, agitating the political class where they live.
It is important to remember that Texas, the great conservative hope, is also doomed by its demographics.
In the last presidential election the GOP leaned heavily on the hypothetical SCOTUS nominations of a second Barry term. As if they are likely to ever nominate another Thomas or Scalia. Or as if Roberts and Kennedy are such prizes.
#52 Hey, don’t forget the rail!!! (made of good old locust wood, with the 2 inch thorns on the trunk—my old pasture has plenty!)
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gop-cant-win-health-care-king-burwell-obamacare-119290.html#.VYxlCvlVhBd
As usual Suderman is on point…
I think Megan McArdle answers this pretty convincingly:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-25/subsidies-and-all-obamacare-stays
If we get rid of universal suffrage and return to something with some basic requirements and boot out all of the illegal immigrants, yeah, I think we’d have a better foundation.
#44 I seem to remember something about the tree of liberty and it needing blood….?
A common misperception. As a native Texan, I’ve been hearing that for the better part of three decades. It never has come to pass.