Supreme Court to hear new ObamaCare challenge

a reply to: AboveBoard

I may have been incorrect in using the term executive order as it appears they are referring to the President changing aspects of the law and using the IRS as a vehicle, selective interpretation may have been a better phrase. Either way the result is the same, the Executive doing the part of the Legislative.

a reply to: jrod

Either way, your premise requires colluding of a type of which there is no evidence based on previous rulings.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I don't care if the law gets fixed and made to work better, or something else comes along that solves the same problems that it did - I just don't want the insurance company death panels to return.

But did we trade one devil for another with bureaucrats who will be affecting the same role?

Sooo...we should be okay with the Supreme Court taking a case that is more or less a typo, knowing full well that partisan political interests are hoping it will be the destruction of the law as the outcome? Is that what Congress intended?

Or better yet, they will toss it back to the new Congress to try and interpret what the old Congress means because they are so mightily fair and the new Congress should get to fix it. This also kills the law.

Frankly, it would be nothing more than the abuse of power by the Judicial Branch or "legislating from the bench." If you hate the law, it may seem this is your salvation. If you do not and the law even with its imperfections helps you, then this legal assault is the heart of the devil itself, exploiting the details in unintended ways. How is this good, really?

Here is a Judge's words on why he found in favor of keeping the subsidies through all Exhanges:

" The Court finds that the plain text of the statute, the statutory structure, and the statutory purpose make clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges. ... And that must be “the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. ”

Washington Post Blogs - Judge Paul Friedman, of the D.C. District Court


-AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Sooo...we should be okay with the Supreme Court taking a case that is more or less a typo, knowing full well that partisan political interests are hoping it will be the destruction of the law as the outcome? Is that what Congress intended?

The law (as it is) should have never been passed in the first place. No one voted for Obamacare with an individual mandate because Obama claimed he was against the mandate before he was elected and then (allegedly) "changed his mind" once he was in office (he lied, as usual). So everyone who voted Obama into office voted for what he claimed he was going to do. Hillary was the one who wanted an individual mandate and Obama used it against her in the campaigns and debates.

Of course, the court would never even consider that. No one cared once they'd done whatever was necessary to make sure the deed was done. They knew little things like that would never come up again. The Republicans might have brought it up a few times but nobody ever made enough noise about it to cause a real commotion. Might have had something to do with Republicans not having any real problems with the mandate when it comes right down to it. Certainly John Roberts didn't.

We've got one hell of a precedent with the individual mandate and nobody seems to give a damn. Maybe the liberal base will change their mind about that the next time the Republicans have full control.