It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In a much-anticipated ruling in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court will decide in the coming week whether Americans who purchased private plans under the Affordable Care Act will lose subsidies because they bought insurance on a federal marketplace rather than a state-run exchange.
Whether the case comes down to Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy, there are reasons to bet against a majority of justices on the high court ruling against the Obama administration in the now famous case brought by opponents of the law who say tax credits were only intended for states that set up their own exchange.
originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: Profusion
What are your reflections
pertaining to this ruling
and the potential civil
unrest that you foresee?
originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I can't help but note that none of the reasons listed in the article have anything to do with Constitutionality or legality. You know, the things the Supreme Court is supposed to make rulings on. They seem to be based on fear, money, and politics. Of course, that seems to be standard operating procedure for the US Government anymore.
14 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Could I follow up on
15 something the General ended with, which and Justice
16 Kennedy referred to, which is the need to read subsidies
17 limited. But so is in a limited way. But so is the
18 need to ensure that exemptions from tax liability are
19 read in a limited way. And under your reading, we're
20 giving more exemptions to employers not to provide
21 insurance, more exemptions to States and others or to
22 individuals, how how does that work? I mean, you've
23 got two competing