Obamacare prevails at Supreme Court


#1

[Read the post]


#2

The dissenting opinion from Scalia is funny, complaining about how “Words no longer have meaning” and 'We should start calling this law SCOTUScare".


#3

Justice Scalia called the majority’s reasoning “quite absurd.”

Justice Scalia is, of course, widely recognized as the nation’s foremost authority on absurd reasoning.


#4

Scalia reminds me of rules lawyers in D&D who claim that, as the rules don’t explicitly state that dead characters can take no actions, after their character dies, they can stand up and start fighting again.


#5

What is it with Roberts and making sense all of a sudden when it comes to ACA? Is he some kind of double-secret appointee who was snuck in there to make safeguard ACA?


#6

And my friend with breast cancer can continue her care without worrying about the astronomical costs. I feel relieved, which is nothing compared to what she feels.


#7

The GOP~Teabaggers are crapping themselves, too bad…


#8

I will admit, given how divisive this court is, when I saw “6-3”, my immediate first thought was, “Whoa, who defected?” … which is, I think, rather indicative of how nasty the polarization has become.


#9

Well, we do know it’s Scalia who defecated.


#10

roberts is willing to go along with the right wing on issues that stand little to no chance of marring the historical reputation of the roberts court. keep in mind he was selected by karl rove. on a case that has a chance of making is court look bad he will find a way to create a majority against scalia/thomas/alito to keep that from happening. as chief justice, if he joins with a majority he gets to assign the writing of the opinion to himself so that he can limit the scope of the ruling to prevent a left wing sweep which is what he did here making the ruling on fairly narrow grounds. the ruling is still sufficiently broad that it would require an actual repeal and not just a change in regulations to do the law in now. that would require republican majorities in the house and senate as well as a republican president. given that republicans in the house and senate have voted to repeal it dozens of times this shows how important it is to try to increase the number of democrats in the senate and maintain a democrat in the white house.


#11

And conservatives have already started crying about “judicial tyranny”, as was predicted.


#12

The ruling seems to be pretty broad. He basically said ‘we must interpret the law as a whole in what its intention was’, which is pretty damn broad for this court when you consider, say, how the Citizens United case was decided.


#13

While what I really want to say to Scalia in response to, “words have no meaning” is “your FACE has no meaning”, I still can’t wrap my head around the dissent.

Secretary of state, state department… And the definitions are (stack exchange):

The NOAD reports the following definitions for those words.

state: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government
nation: a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory
country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory


#14

I am usually a strict interpretist–change a badly worded law, dont reinterpret it–but this seems so clear cut. In a thousand page law a staffer who was writing the thing used a synonym for nation.

The congressional minutes and debates show this to be true. And I’m sure the person that wrote that line is blackout drunk right now in celebration.


#15

#16

Interesting photo. . . pardon my ignorance, but what’s the source/context? And who’s the non-presidential guy?


#17

ACA is here to stay, awesome. About a decade ago I had to go into debt and pay off my mother’s medical bills so they wouldn’t hurt her credit. Wish ACA was around then.


#18

Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough.

This was the reaction to today’s ruling, from the White House photographer’s Instagram feed.

Also this one.

Biden doesn’t hug so exuberantly.


#19

Those rules lawyers need to be careful not to be hoist on their own petard.

Players: Yay, we killed the dragon! Let’s loot its treasure!
DM: Not so fast; the dragon’s corpse stands up and breathes fire at you. You take 73 damage, save for half.
Players: But it’s dead!
DM: The rules don’t explicitly state that the condition Dead prevents creatures from taking actions, right?


#20

man, i always pictured Biden as an enthusiastic bro-hug type of guy, not a “i’m hugging you, man, but i’m straight, got it?” type guy. /pat pat