2537
2538

SCOTUS upholds Obamacare (bloomberg.com)

Peter_Venkman_1 が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]MrDannyOcean 279ポイント280ポイント  (167子コメント)

Both 'swing votes' went with the Administration and ruled that subsidies are allowed for the federal exchanges.

Roberts, Kennedy, Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor join for a 6-3 decision. Scalia, Thomas, Alito in dissent.

edit: Court avoids the 'Chevron defense' which states that federal agencies get to decide ambiguous laws. Instead, the Court decided that Congress's intention was not to leave the phrasing ambiguous and have the agency interpret, but the intention was clearly to allow subsidies on the federal exchange. That's actually a clearer win than many expected for the ACA (imo).

[–]BradleyCooperDildo 106ポイント107ポイント  (82子コメント)

Roberts isn't a swing vote, he's more concerned with his legacy and the perception of the Court than anything else.

[–]ccmulligan 63ポイント64ポイント  (44子コメント)

That's true to an extent, but in general, Roberts makes business-friendly rulings, rather than voting as a conservative ideologue (Scalia, Alito) or a contrarian (Thomas). And there's no denying that the ACA has been a boon to certain hospitals and insurance companies.

[–]Mynameisnotdoug 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Does Thomas ever disagree with Scalia?

[–]NotSquareGarden [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

They vote together 91% of the time. Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time.

[–]everred [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's because they formed their alliances as soon as they got to the island, and nobody wants to break rank lest they get voted off next.

Coming this fall: Survivor Supreme

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

      [–]slash196 14ポイント15ポイント  (26子コメント)

      It's a boon to every business that has to pay insurance premiums, through cost-control measures.

      [–]ccmulligan 80ポイント81ポイント  (13子コメント)

      Almost like nearly all of its provisions were drafted by conservative/pro-business think tanks and implemented by a moderate Democratic president as a somewhat-effective middle ground between a fully private healthcare system and a single-payer system, but is nevertheless portrayed by American media as a far-left socialist takeover of the healthcare system...

      [–]slash196 29ポイント30ポイント  (5子コメント)

      portrayed by American media as a far-left socialist takeover of the healthcare system...

      So portrayed by insane right-wing politicians and "reported" wholesale by a lazy, corrupt media too scared of its own shadow to ever contradict one of the two major parties.

      [–]ccmulligan 19ポイント20ポイント  (2子コメント)

      by a lazy, corrupt media too scared of its own shadow

      Or too scared to criticize the corporate system that wholly owns the parent companies of almost every major media outlet in the United States, since it is what has made the owners of these outlets wealthy...

      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

        [–]DorkJedi [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

        It amuses the living hell out of me that the same organization that created it (Heritage Foundation) is its biggest opponent. All because the one that actually passed it has the wrong letter after his name.

        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

          コメントをもっと表示する (12 返事)

            コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

              [–]checkerboardandroid 88ポイント89ポイント  (20子コメント)

              Well he should've been thinking about that during the Citizen's United case too.

              [–]CompactedConscience 57ポイント58ポイント  (1子コメント)

              I don't think his motivation is as simplistic as a simple concern over his legacy (though it might influence his decision making to some extent). But the argument goes that backlash over a few highly partisan cases like Citizens United is what caused him to consider the reputation of the court when making decisions.

              [–]QuelqueChoseRose [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              And it's nothing unheard of for justices to think about how a decision will be received. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has repeatedly said she thinks the court shouldn't have gone so far in Roe v. Wade due to the backlash it provoked.

              [–]jookyspooky [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

              You should read the courts opinion on Citizens United. Essentially, the court said the political system is set up for money and its up to "we the people" to regulate the money. To restrict speech just so less money is thrown into a system we created and we support isn't constitutional.

              If the decision would have give against Citizens United then speech could be restricted when it coincides with a political campaign. The case was about a company wanted to put out a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton that came out near the 2012 primaries. They allowed the company to have the film because it is speech.

              Just because the politicians WE elect and WE support who are supposed to represent US are more than happy to take millions doesn't mean speech should be restricted.

              It's up to "we the people" to deal with billion dollar campaigns. The courts can't save us from our apathy and our ignorance. We can force our politicians to create legislation to restrict the billions in bribes and corruption but that takes an informed population. We are mostly ignorant and can't be bothered to read.

              From Wikipedia: This ruling was frequently characterized as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[24] or as removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[25] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[26]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[27] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[28] The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.

              [–]UncharminglyWitty 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

              If you're going to bring CU into this then understand the case. It was about a couple friends making a politically charged movie during an election year. It was ruled they couldn't make a movie until SCOTUS was like "nah it's cool. Make your movie. You do you"

              [–]cocoabean 14ポイント15ポイント  (6子コメント)

              That case wasn't as controversial as people make it out to be in my opinion. If your only information about it is from media sources, I highly recommend that you read the actual decision.

              [–]grflax [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

              I'm really tired of this trope downplaying the seriousness of the Citizens United case. Yes, if you read the legal opinion, the ruling is very narrow in scope, limited to the film company. But legal rulings, (especially SCOTUS rulings) never take place in a vacuum.

              You must consider what this does to current election laws and the system we find ourselves in. Citizens left a gaping hole that lets unaccountable groups pour unlimited and untracked money into federal elections. (the Colbert Report series on superPACs was especially good) Who in their right mind thinks thats a good idea?

              Maybe the Citizens case was a necessary ruling to change an unjust law. But new laws are needed to fill the gap left. That hasn't happened, and were left with a broken system that only gets worse. This IS a problem, something NEEDS to be done.

              [–]ajdragoon [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

              I don't get how people are still downplaying it when we saw its effects almost immediately.

              [–]HungNavySEAL300Kills [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              This current presidential campaign is also fully showing its potential. Every major candidate is delaying and working every letter of the law to maximize anonymous donating. Hence you see Jeb Bush telling everyone he's running for president, but not officially, then laying down and having his corporate backers rain down money in his campaign, now that he has enough he is the best funded candidate he has announced his campaign. Hillary did the same. They tell everyone who actually matters they're running, get their money, then go through the technical details of notifying the voters.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                  コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                    [–]Mutt1223 23ポイント24ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    I'll take it.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (14 返事)

                      [–]jschild 37ポイント38ポイント  (11子コメント)

                      What's funny is that Scalia always talks about original intent on laws, yet twisted himself all over the place to not use the clear original intent of the drafters who he could ask.

                      He's absolutely amazing at divining the original intent of dead people though.

                      [–]ookoshi [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

                      You misrepresent Scalia's position. He believes in originalism, not original intent. When he talks about originalism, his view is that SCOTUS's job is to determine how someone who lived at the time of the law's passing would have interpreted the text. So, for example, if it's a 1st amendment case about free speech, the question he asks himself is, "Would an average person in the late 1700's/early 1800's believe that the first amendment applies to the type of speech before the court?"

                      He's never argued that intent overrides text. He's arguing that text must be interpreted according to how someone in that era would've interpreted that text, not how someone 200 years later would interpret the same text.

                      That being said, I'm glad the ACA was upheld, and Scalia's opinions are certainly pretty out there sometimes. But in the interest of getting to the truth, let's be accurate about describing with originalism is.

                      [–]Vinnys_Magic_Grits [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      Scalia's originalism only applies when the Court is called upon to determine the constitutionality of a federal law. It's also more accurately stated that it matters what a person alive at the time of the drafting of the Constitutional amendment would read it to mean. He doesn't care about what the Framers think about any Amendment after the Bill of Rights, because they didn't write them.

                      But I digress. This decision isn't about constitutionality. This decision is about statutory interpretation, so all that matters is what the law says, and what the law was intended to do when it was written and passed in 2009. /u/jschild is exactly right about Scalia's dissent. He takes the phrase "State Exchange" and insists that it couldn't POSSIBLY mean "State and Federal Exchange" because that isn't what it says even though everyone knows that reading it that way brings about the exact result that Congress intended when they passed the ACA, an interpretation without which the law would not function as everyone involved intended it to function. He relies on one single phrase, completely devoid of the context, interpretation, and legislative intent meant to apply to it when it was written.

                      TL;DR You're mostly right on Scalia's originalist view, but it is inapplicable to a case of statutory interpretation.

                      [–]BENT_PENIS [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      So, for example, if it's a 1st amendment case about free speech, the question he asks himself is, "Would an average person in the late 1700's/early 1800's believe that the first amendment applies to the type of speech before the court?"

                      If people are going to interpret things this way, I think that suggests we should be rewriting the law more often to clarify what is intended. Like Thomas Jefferson believed we should rewrite the Constitution each generation. It seems silly to have a 200 year old document telling us what to do when we have to interpret it according to what we think people would have thought back in those times.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                        [–]Matthattan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        Yes. He believes in original intent when it comes to the Constitution, but not when it comes to statutes. Which has the convenient effect of allowing him to rely on original intent only when everyone who could contradict him has been dead since before the hay baler was invented.

                        [–]Jambox_Ready [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        Oh I read his dissent and was like, wow, you're really out there bro but now you're just being a dick.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                          [–]tigersharkwushen_ 16ポイント17ポイント  (7子コメント)

                          It's difficult to see how Scalia, Thomas and Alito aren't activist judges at this point.

                          [–]toofastkindafurious 13ポイント14ポイント  (42子コメント)

                          Weren't people worried about Roberts being a solely conservative judge? Turns out people can thank Bush for one thing.

                          [–]NOTORIOUS_MLK 91ポイント92ポイント  (6子コメント)

                          Roberts is a conservative judge, but he's also the Chief Justice, which means he has to be concerned with the Court's place within the nation. If he had gone the other way in both the healthcare cases, the only two places he's been especially "liberal" of late, then the outcry against the Court would probably reach levels unseen since the Roosevelt administration

                          [–]kyleg5 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          The vast majority of his seminal rulings have been incredibly conservative and not limited in his rulings like he said he would be. Notable examples include DC v Heller, Citizens United, and Shelby County v. Holder. In any other era both this case and Sebelius V NFIB would have been viewed as frivolous and not even made it to the Court (for evidence look at how legal scholars wrote about these cases at the beginning). Just because Roberts recognizes the importance of preserving the legitimacy of the Court doesn't mean he has a liberal soft spot.

                          [–]brunnock 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          He's changed. Slate has a good article which may explain why-

                          http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/john_roberts_isn_t_a_reliable_conservative_vote_the_chief_justice_is_siding.html

                          [–]drocks27 10ポイント11ポイント  (18子コメント)

                          a little surprised by Roberts so far. Can't say I am surprised by Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (14 返事)

                            コメントをもっと表示する (21 返事)

                              [–]drocks27 136ポイント137ポイント  (104子コメント)

                              In his oral announcement, the Chief Justice apparently had a lot of negative comments about the sloppiness in drafting the ACA.

                              The majority: "The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting."

                              -From the SCOTUS live blog

                              [–]flying87 97ポイント98ポイント  (57子コメント)

                              Well he's not wrong. Because of last minute reconciliation they had to bypass essentially the editor and get it done as is or have the whole thing shredded by republicans. It really was an unprecedented ass backwards way to get the bill passed. I'm glad it worked out in the end, since its better than nothing. I would prefer universal healthcare or at least a public option. Stepping stones.

                              [–]majesticjg 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

                              I like the idea of ACA, but there are serious problems with it from the insurance underwriting side of things.

                              It didn't do much of anything to control pharmaceutical and medical device costs, and the whole thing hinges on the premise that young people who are just starting out in a jobless economy and buried under a mountain of student debt can and should subsidize the healthcare of baby boomers who have had their whole lives to prepare for the health complications of old age. (Forbes Article)

                              It's better than nothing... but not by much.

                              [–]pwny_ [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                              and the whole thing hinges on the premise that young people...can and should subsidize the healthcare of baby boomers

                              To be fair, this is exactly what insurance is. Everyone throws money into a pot, and then payouts are made to people who need it. In healthcare, who needs it? The old.

                              You paint this unjust image as though the ACA invented it. That's how all insurance works.

                              [–]majesticjg [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                              I'm highly aware of how insurance works. However, the group they're expecting to pay in doesn't have the money. It only works when there's enough money in the pot. Furthermore, insurance only works that way when there is underwriting. When an insurance company can charge a sicker person more or deny them entry into the pool altogether, but we've eliminated that important aspect of insurance. So now you have no choice whose "pool" you're contributing to. If you want to join the "mostly healthy people pool" where you pay in less, you can't, because that pool is required to let everyone in who wants to be in.

                              So they added subsidies. Which are paid from taxes. Older people typically make more money, so they pay more taxes which gets turned into (among other things) subsidy dollars. But not proportionately.

                              And at every layer there is administrative expense, a certain amount of corruption and so forth. Never does 100% of the monies collected get spent on the mission at hand.

                              So no underwriting. Insufficient pool contributions and shell-game subsidy funding. That's not the formula for sustainability. I've always said to people who don't like ACA, "Push for full and maximum implementation, then watch it collapse under its own weight. You don't have to repeal anything at all." After all, if ACA is good for every American, why the hell would you start granting waivers?

                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                コメントをもっと表示する (52 返事)

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (46 返事)

                                    [–]Idejder 170ポイント171ポイント  (152子コメント)

                                    From Scalia's dissent: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

                                    (from scotusblog.com)

                                    Ha!

                                    [–]PainMatrix 29ポイント30ポイント  (53子コメント)

                                    The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere.

                                    He feels that the court overextended their interpretation above what was intended by congress. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the ACA itself to counter or confirm this.

                                    [–]RichardMNixon42 26ポイント27ポイント  (27子コメント)

                                    He doesn't use the word "intent" because it's obvious that the way he reads it is not how congress intended it to be read. He wants to go by the letter and not the intent.

                                    [–]Excelion27 23ポイント24ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                    Sooo... they should have written it better?

                                    [–]sjleader 24ポイント25ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Yes. Or congress could have voted to simply amend the law to read "established by the state OR FEDERAL government..."

                                    [–]WHOLE_LOTTA_WAMPUM 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    We're talking about a 4 word phrase out of 11 million words in the law.

                                    Lawyers would find a way to challenge it regardless of how well it was written.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                      [–]jschild 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Which is funny because he's well know for going by the intent and not the letter of the law when he disagrees with it.

                                      [–]paiute 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      He wants to go by the letter and not the intent.

                                      This time. Next time, when it serves his ideology, it will be the reverse.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (19 返事)

                                        [–]wehadtosaydickety 8ポイント9ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                        Can some lawyer ELI5? In English "the State" can mean both the federal or state government. If we want a true literal interpretation, there is no reason that can't mean the federal government as it is also "the State."

                                        I'm assuming U.S. law tends to use that word a bit more specifically.

                                        [–]skankinmonkey 23ポイント24ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        The law uses the state separately from the federal govt. However, the law also clearly establishes exchanges in states when states don't do it. Scalia said the exchanges are different because the wording doesn't explicitly include federal exchanges in the states while the majority opinion says, 'the wording may be shitty, but the intent was clear, and it's not our job to change the law when the intent is clear.'

                                        [–]gpsrx 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                        To provide background on the law in this case, Scalia and Thomas tend to be purely textualists, and do not believe in looking to legislative intent. Rather, they believe that we should always look to the law as written, and unless the wording is clearly ambiguous or absurd on its face, they do not look to the intent of the drafter.

                                        In contrast, the justices who wrote this opinion looked to the intent of congress, as embodied in the rest of the statute, in deciding that even though it says only state exchanges, what they meant was all exchanges. They specifically point to the inartful drafting of the statute to drive the point home that a 4-word phrase is not dispositive when the rest of the statute shows an intent to provide subsidies to federal exchanges.

                                        [EDIT: meant to say Thomas, not Roberts]

                                        [–]MrDannyOcean 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                        Scalia wants to read it literally as 'established by the state' and not the federal government.

                                        The majority ruled that the clear intent of the law was to allow the subsidies on both federal and state exchanges (as the other sections of the law really don't make any sense otherwise), and that this clear intent was more important than the 'inartful drafting' of the phrase 'established by the state'.

                                        [–]biglakeuga 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Certainly in common parlance it can, but most acts-including this one-have definition sections for key terms. Here, the act itself defines state as "each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia." Check out 42 U.S.C. 18024(d) or page 10 of the Court's Majority opinion. And, as others have noted, the act repeatedly contrasts obligations or tasks done by "the state" with those done "Federally." So "state" as "nation-state" just doesn't apply here any way you care to slice it, although I admit it's confusing language if you're not used to reading statutory acts and their attendant forms.

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                          [–]1_2__3 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                          In social issues you can assume as a general rule that Scalia is wrong. I know he's a highly respected judge and I would never try to say he's dumb or crazy, but seriously, when it comes to hardline conservative vs. progressive issues it's like his alter ego comes out and he's a crazy nonsense-spewing tea party nutjob.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                                            [–]timory 49ポイント50ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                            I love reading Scalia's dissents. He throws such hilarious tantrums. This time he has used the term "jiggery-pokery," which I just find delightful.

                                            [–]maul_walker 17ポイント18ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                            I completely agree, while I don't always agree with him, he writes the best dissents by far and can make a shitty argument seem quite relevant.

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                              [–]derf82 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                              Not that I have read a lot, but every Supreme Court dissent I have ever read ends some variation of the pharse "I respectfully dissent."

                                              Scalia just ends, after pages of tirade about how stupid he thinks this decision is, with "I dissent."

                                              One big subtextual middle finger to Roberts and Kennedy in that minor change of phrase.

                                              [–]socsa 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              That cheeky motherfucker.

                                              [–]DirtyThunder 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              He called the majority's reasoning "pure applesauce"

                                              [–]n3tm4n 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              Scalia - always angling to put the dis in dissent.

                                              [–]jisa 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                              Scalia suggested calling it SCOTUSCare because it's been before the Supreme Court twice and upheld twice. out of curiosity, how many times has the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, and does this mean we should have pictures of the conservative justices on the walls of every death chamber in the country?

                                              [–]zeperf [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                              Both times were more of a favor to the law than they were an affirmation though. This time was "we know what you meant to say." The other time was "although you repeatedly said that the penalty is not a tax, we will rule it legal because its functionally a tax."

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                [–]KageJittai 8ポイント9ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                                ConservCare is more appropriate, considering the law was originally written by conservative ThinkTanks (with both the mandate AND the public option). And first implemented by conservative governor Mitt Romney

                                                [–]learath 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                You spell "insurance agencies" really badly.

                                                [–]rrmains 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                this is an often forgotten fact...by romney himself, even.

                                                [–]pinchmeplease [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                                It's one thing to determine what is best for your state (you know state's rights and all), and another when the federal government takes over for the whole country. What may be good for one state will not necessarily be good for another, let alone the whole country.

                                                [–]KageJittai [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                Being good for one state doesn't mean it is or isn't good for the whole country.

                                                I actually don't care much for the ACA, I do think it is better, but it never addresses any of the root causes. To me, the ACA is like turning over someone who is passed out drunk so they don't drown in their own vomit.

                                                Really, I think the root cause of the healthcare crisis, is that we keep trying to apply free-market economics to something that isn't fundamentally a free market system.

                                                [–]foxh8er 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                He wasn't that conservative then.

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                  [–]keyree 16ポイント17ポイント  (39子コメント)

                                                  Scalia can suck fat donkey dick. When was the last time he had an opinion that was actually good for this country? Kyllo?

                                                  [–]hatramroany 33ポイント34ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                  I mean he and Kagan (the most liberal I believe) agree like 70% of the time

                                                  [–]foxh8er 40ポイント41ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                  Almost all agree a majority of the time. Aren't most decisions unanimous?

                                                  [–]Laconium 48ポイント49ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                  The vast majority of unanimous decisions are not nearly "sexy" enough for the media to actually cover. So they only talk about the 5-4 splits so it creates a false impression of a fundamentally divided court.

                                                  [–]fullofwind 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  Because most of those are small procedural things or extreme outlying events that are in no way common, the split votes are usually things that could have potential impact on a huge portion of Americans.

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                      [–]bobtheflob 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      That was one thing that surprised me in law school. There are a lot of cases that are either unanimous, or have weird combinations of justices on each side. But those are the ones that are less politicized, so we don't here much about them.

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (29 返事)

                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (27 返事)

                                                            [–]Peter_Venkman_1[S] 60ポイント61ポイント  (22子コメント)

                                                            Here's the ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

                                                            [–]DirtyThunder 45ポイント46ポイント  (20子コメント)

                                                            But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.

                                                            That seems like a fair interpretation of the statute haha

                                                            *(Formatting)

                                                            [–]ctornync 27ポイント28ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                                            It is. And the fact that this was still a 6-3 decision reinforces my belief: that the Supreme Court justice(s) the next president will select is the overridingly important factor for my vote in 2016.

                                                            [–]SoMuchPorn69 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                            I agree with the dissent in this case. Congress messed up when it wrote that provision, but the provision is clear. If a mistake in a law needs to be fixed, then that duty belongs to Congress, not the Supreme Court. The only reason this is even an issue is because Congress is all Republican now, and they would have rather seen the ACA fall apart than to fix a clerical error.

                                                            [–]sec_31 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

                                                            The only reason this is even an issue is because Congress is all Republican now, and they would have rather seen the ACA fall apart than to fix a clerical error.

                                                            And it is a mistake for the court to punt it to congress when they know congress will refuse to fix it. It is perfectly reasonable to find that since the entire law basically relies on the subsides that the error in language doesn't override the intent. Context matters and it is reasonable to use context to clarify ambiguity.

                                                            If congress doesn't want the subsidies, they need to pass a law that removes the subsidies, the court should not be here to undo laws over ambiguity that is easily negated with context.

                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                              [–]BuddhistSagan 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                              For real. The court is already 5 conservatives and 4 liberals. If a republican becomes president you can guarantee it will be 6 conservatives and 3 liberals. The stakes have literally never been higher.

                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                [–]pajamabrigadier [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                                                As someone who's not knowledge about economics, how would ruling the opposite way harm the market?

                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                    [–]cats_in_tiny_shoes 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                    Scalia used the term "jiggery pokery" in his dissenting opinion.

                                                                    This is not really relevant to any political discussion but come on, that's just plain fun.

                                                                    [–]Quidfacis_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                    The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges.

                                                                    Truly one of our greatest legal minds.

                                                                    [–]clavalle 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                    He's a wordsmith.

                                                                    You don't get to that level in the legal profession without a masterful command of the language.

                                                                    [–]Pathfinding [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                    Even if you don't agree with the guy. Scalia's opinions and dissents are usually a fun read.

                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                      [–]SanDiegoTexas 101ポイント102ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                      They call a 6-3 ruling a divided court? Jeez, in today's climate 6-3 is a landslide on a controversial, political case.

                                                                      [–]OfficialCocaColaAMA [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                      Yeah, there was no chance Scalia/Thomas or Alito would ever side with the administration. So this is basically unanimous.

                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                        [–]TheAquaman 185ポイント186ポイント  (25子コメント)

                                                                        JUST IN: Republicans set to vote on defunding Obamacare for the 100th time.

                                                                        [–]Slimerbacca 33ポイント34ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                                                        defunding or repealing? either way it is a waste of taxpayer money for people who say they are fiscally conservative!

                                                                        [–]antiqua_lumina 27ポイント28ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                        Both. Also, set to pass a resolution for the 70th time that "Obamacare sucks times infinity plus one."

                                                                        [–]Diplomjodler [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                        They're only fiscally conservative when it comes to helping poor people.

                                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (13 返事)

                                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                                                            [–]zelda2013 41ポイント42ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                                            From Scalia's dissent: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

                                                                            [–]Caulker 35ポイント36ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                            mmmm so salty

                                                                            [–]zHellas 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                            Someone should photoshop a can of Morton Salt and replace the girl's face with Scalia's.

                                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                                                              [–]gAlienLifeform 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                              Scalia in 2012: “Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”

                                                                              Cited by Roberts in Today's Opinion at pg. 17, reporter tweeting about it here.

                                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                                [–]CarlGauss 83ポイント84ポイント  (77子コメント)

                                                                                The message is clear: if one wants to dismantle obamacare, it'll have to be done through congress, not the courts. The problem is that obamacare is becoming popular enough that it'll be increasingly difficult for the GOP to repeal it even if they win the presidency and maintain both houses of congress in 2016.

                                                                                [–]mpv81 46ポイント47ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                                                I've said this a number of times, but in ten to twenty years conservatives will be touting the idea that the ACA was basically drafted from their playbook (which portions of it definitely were).

                                                                                Today, over 8 million people have healthcare they wouldn't have access to if the ACA didn't exist. It's an imperfect, but largely successful piece of legislation and it's popularity will only increase over the years. The Republicans will try to sweep their intransigence under the rug shortly and the sad thing is that they'll be able to as the public seems to have a disturbingly short memory.

                                                                                [–]djwhiplash2001 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                I'm not so sure the Republicans, no matter how short our memories may be, will ever try to claim "Obamacare" as their own.

                                                                                [–]bdog2g2 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                I'm not so sure the Republicans, no matter how short our memories may be, will ever try to claim "Obamacare" as their own.

                                                                                Well obviously not. As mpv81 stated they'll claim the ACA was out of their playbook. It's all in the branding.

                                                                                [–]rironin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                Do not underestimate their ability to rewrite history. They will try. They may succeed.

                                                                                [–]nazbot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                I LOVED that Republicans were using Obamacare as some sort of cudgel. As someone who lives in a country with Universal Care I know how popular it will be when it's fully implemented. Associating it with Obama like that was a dumb, dumb move. Almost as dumb as those people on the left to get them to call it the ACA.

                                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                                                                  [–]icancut 52ポイント53ポイント  (49子コメント)

                                                                                  The problem is you can't just give and then take away and expect people to be ok with that. The still have no alternative. All they want to do is stop people form getting healthcare. If that's not cold hearted, I don't know what is.

                                                                                  [–]JohnGillnitz 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                  Rick Perry didn't seem to have a problem doing it. By refusing to expand Medicare in Texas, he effectively kept tens of thousands of people from getting health care.

                                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (46 返事)

                                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (13 返事)

                                                                                      [–]deathtotheemperor 21ポイント22ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                                                      This was the final test. There will be adjustments here and there, and battles on the margins, but Obamacare is now locked in. I doubt it will even be mentioned much in the 2016 campaign, except for vague promises to "improve" it.

                                                                                      [–]ohreally67 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                                                                      It will be mentioned over and over again, endlessly, by the Democrat candidate -- claiming if you vote Republican, that the ACA will be repealed. This will force the Republican candidate to either claim (over and over again) that they won't repeal it, or sound like an idiot for trying not to respond.

                                                                                      This is how politics works: you pick a divisive issue and accuse your opponent of not agreeing with you. This forces them to defend a controversial opinion.

                                                                                      [–]plutonianknight [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                      It will be mentioned over and over again, endlessly, by the Democrat candidate -- claiming if you vote Republican, that the ACA will be repealed

                                                                                      Which would be a fair thing to claim, considering Jeb Bush has implied just that.

                                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                                                                                        [–]ivsciguy 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                        I was far more surprised by the Texas Housing case.

                                                                                        [–]Vinnys_Magic_Grits [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                        This one was pretty straightforward. Roberts, for whatever reason, didn't want to say he was applying Chevron deference, so he cited a few Scalia opinions that stood for the propositions that ambiguities with major consequences don't merit Chevron deference, and that you need to read a statutory ambiguity in its overall context to figure out its plain meaning. Then he applies Chevron without the agency deference to get to the same result, essentially to avoid having to say, "The Court is required to defer to the IRS's interpretation of the subsidy provision."

                                                                                        Scalia, raging once again at what he sees as Roberts doing logical somersaults to uphold an unconstitutional law, (more accurately, Roberts has done a few somersaults to uphold a constitutional law conservatives hate without losing all his conservative cred), accuses Roberts of "interpretive jiggery-pokery" to write a decision that is "pure applesauce." Oh Antonin. How I love your dissents.

                                                                                        [–]uphillalltheway [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                        It's been a bad week for Confederate flag flying, anti-Obamacare GOPers in the South. I'm worried about what the gay marriage ruling will do to them.

                                                                                        [–]baltimoretom 19ポイント20ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                        I like this insult on Fb NBC SCOTUS post http://imgur.com/rs7mePB

                                                                                        [–]OneOfDozens 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                        He earned that belt clip, damn right he's going to wear it

                                                                                        [–]bobtheflob 49ポイント50ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                                                        Congrats /u/Peter_Venkman_1 on winning the karma race.

                                                                                        [–]Peter_Venkman_1[S] 42ポイント43ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                                        I just got lucky by a few seconds. Thanks.

                                                                                        [–]ComeAbout 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                        Queue House republicans voting to repeal Obamacare yet again...

                                                                                        [–]Mystresse [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                        I feel like you should be using the word cue there. But I'm not certain.

                                                                                        [–]Do_something_today 19ポイント20ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                                                        I can't wait to see Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly shit themselves over shit tonight.

                                                                                        [–]squattmunki 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                                        I don't understand how anyone who doesn't agree with their views can watch that crap. It gives me high blood pressure and I'm 27 years old.

                                                                                        [–]Do_something_today 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                        I just laugh because i find it hard to believe they mean everything they say smh

                                                                                        [–]SiberianShibe 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                        I watch it because I find it funny how dumb they are. It's hilarious.

                                                                                        [–]funkyloki [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                        Make no mistake. Neither of them are dumb. They are vile, disgusting human beings for doing what they do, but they aren't dumb.

                                                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                                          [–]jbondyoda 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                          As far as I know Hannity is on the radio at 3 PM nationwide.

                                                                                          [–]SiberianShibe 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                          Fox News is pure gold entertainment right now. You can figuratively see their brains slowly exploding.

                                                                                          [–]an_actual_lawyer 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                          From the majority's opinion, a sort of TL;DR:

                                                                                          Here, the statutory scheme compels the Court to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid.

                                                                                          The opinion continues...

                                                                                          The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage re- quirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to op- erate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Na- tion, but those requirements only work when combined with the cov- erage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.

                                                                                          [–]grunglebear 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                                          “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote. “If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

                                                                                          Interesting. Is this an accepted legal practice, to interpret a law based on its intent and not on its technical merits?

                                                                                          [–]RikersTrombone [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                          https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

                                                                                          [–]brkello [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                          Yes. Particularly when it is only a few words in a million word bill where other parts are directly on conflict. Particularly when the people who drafted the bill are still alive and can state what the intent was.

                                                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                                                            [–]Jade_Pornsurge 14ポイント15ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                                                            scalia and thomas dissented? shocked.jpeg

                                                                                            [–]invinciblepenguin 42ポイント43ポイント  (23子コメント)

                                                                                            A major piece of Obama's legacy was two swing votes away from blowing up in flames. For the good of those currently benefiting from ACA/Obamacare exchanges, this is very good news.

                                                                                            [–]Nyx_Goddess 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                            I'm in that boat too. I can no longer be denied coverage because of a history of cancer.

                                                                                            The cancer didn't kill me, and I'll be damned if the insurance companies try to finish the job. HUGE MIDDLE FINGER

                                                                                            [–]beastcock 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                            I signed up for Obamacare last week after my wife left her job. This is a very big deal for me.

                                                                                            [–]keyree 22ポイント23ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                            Count me among that number. No way I can afford my insurance without subsidies in Texas. I'm ecstatic.

                                                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (19 返事)

                                                                                              [–]baltimoretom 26ポイント27ポイント  (16子コメント)

                                                                                              This is when I like watching Fox News. I love seeing them lose their minds.

                                                                                              [–]apm588 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                              We still have the SSM marriage ruling coming either tomorrow or Monday. Be sure to tune in to Fox News again for more reactions haha.

                                                                                              [–]Nyx_Goddess 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                              Oh I hope it's tomorrow! What a great way to ring in the weekend!

                                                                                              [–]apm588 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                                                                              I heard it could be Monday. Rumour is that Ginsberg could be writing the opinion of the court. A friend of mine was following it more closely than I was.

                                                                                              I am hoping it is tomorrow though. The anticipation is killing me, as the ruling effects me :/

                                                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (12 返事)

                                                                                                [–]Argos_the_Dog 26ポイント27ポイント  (27子コメント)

                                                                                                This is great news... is Obamacare perfect? No, but until we are able to develop a more perfect system it is helping a lot of people. Good on the SCOTUS.

                                                                                                [–]KyuuAA 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                So, how will they fight Obamacare now?

                                                                                                [–]TRACCART 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                Mitt Romney should be happy that his law got upheld.

                                                                                                [–]beach-bum 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                                I guess it's back to the Benghazi scandal for the GOP.

                                                                                                [–]danhOIUY 22ポイント23ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                                                                This is political ;). "Words no longer have meaning".

                                                                                                [–]zz4 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                                You know, when I wrote how this was how they were going to rule, some lawyer on reddit basically shat all over me. So, fuck yes for HC, and fuck yes for that too.

                                                                                                [–]ryan924 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                                90% of the people on reddit who say they are lawyers are completely full of it.

                                                                                                [–]yablebab [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                As an attorney myself, I completely agree with you.

                                                                                                [–]Manbearpig258 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                                FOX News is already calling this the "central domestic issue" in the 2016 Election...like the ruling hasn't resolved anything.

                                                                                                [–]Jon-JONES 27ポイント28ポイント  (56子コメント)

                                                                                                Why are conservatives so hell bent on being on the wrong side of history?

                                                                                                [–]Peter_Venkman_1[S] 49ポイント50ポイント  (30子コメント)

                                                                                                As a conservative, I wonder this myself. "Hey! Let's see how many people we can make NOT vote for us FOREVER"

                                                                                                [–]aglaeasfather 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                very few. The American public's collective memory is basically shit. As long as an incumbent politician polishes something up and runs with it they'll get re-elected. The key is just talking a big game and pandering. Doesn't matter what it is, as long as we feel good we'll buy it.

                                                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (29 返事)

                                                                                                  [–]BulletBeall 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                                  You do realize there are a bunch of voting aged people that want the ACA repealed because Obama and the Dems put it in place. Most of these people are even active beneficiaries of the act. Why people can't ignore party lines and just do what is right and smart is just unbelievable.

                                                                                                  [–]astouffer 6ポイント7ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                                                                                  Obamacare was written by the insurance companies. All it did was jack up the rates of everyone else. I would support nationalized healthcare but I have absolutely no faith that our government could make it work.

                                                                                                  [–]McNerfBurger 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                                                  Additionally, the ACA is currently being propped up by exceptions and alterations issued by executive order. These exceptions will eventually end and the real cost of the program will be made clear. But shit, that's years down the road, why worry about that now? Free stuff!

                                                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                                                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                                                                                                      [–]tasmith1972 15ポイント16ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                                                                      It was a nonsense case anyway. Republicans were just looking for any little straw to grab to mess up the ACA.

                                                                                                      [–]EatingPizza 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                      It was a nonsense case anyway. Republicans were just looking for any little straw to grab to mess up the ACA.

                                                                                                      And wasting money, tying up courts, etc.

                                                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                                                                        [–]wondering_runner 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                                        While Obamacare is far from a "perfect" system, I think it is a step towards the right direction. I've seen mix results, but for the most part I've seen it help a lot of people and myself get coverage.

                                                                                                        [–]akinginthequeen 14ポイント15ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                                                                        One thing I will never understand is how a group of people can work so hard to ensure that millions of people can't afford health care. It is sad that it got to this point. If Republicans don't agree with the ACA, that is fine, but where is their alternative? Why aren't they proposing legislation to fix what they deem its inadequacies? Having debate on their ideas? Instead, they vote to repeal it and sue the federal government to get rid of it. All this despite the fact that many, many, many reports heavily suggest that, for what it is, the ACA is working. It may not be perfect, but you don't throw away something that's not perfect; you work to make it better.

                                                                                                        You may not like politics, but if you're looking for a lesser of two evils (though, I openly think one side is a fuck ton less evil than the other), then you should like the Democratic Party; it's that plain and simple. Though not perfect, these people have been open to the idea of helping the less fortunate get health care, helping the less represented get equal rights, and helping those suffering financially to get larger wages. The other side, on the other hand, has done all it can to keep those who are rich as rich as can be. I've never been rich, but I've certainly never been poor. And the values that were instilled within me by my mother--equality, helping the less fortunate, etc.--are all values that the Democratic Party seems to hold closer to heart. That doesn't seem to be up for debate whether or not you like politics or dislike politics.

                                                                                                        The Roberts Court should be applauded for doing the right thing, not only in respect to the logic of the entire situation, but morally as well. Because this Court stood up and made this decision, millions of people--people like my dad and brother here in North Carolina--will still be able to afford their health care. It's unfortunate that, despite both having full-time jobs for my entire life, they have to depend on the subsidies in the first place, but that's the world that Republican politicians fight for.

                                                                                                        [–]slash196 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                                        If Republicans don't agree with the ACA, that is fine, but where is their alternative?

                                                                                                        The ACA WAS the Republican alternative. It's Romneycare on a national scale. They don't have an alternative because their alternative was already implemented.

                                                                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                                                                          [–]_supernovasky_ 13ポイント14ポイント  (21子コメント)

                                                                                                          FUCK YES.

                                                                                                          Seriously though... I am a 27 year old male with multiple pre-existing conditions, a graduate student, and married with a child on the way. Losing Obamacare would have destroyed me and my family. Thank fucking god - I was honestly worried that this one would actually get overthrown by the Supreme Court. I'm delightfully shocked it didn't.

                                                                                                          Edit: Multiple people are commenting that I was not in danger of losing Obamacare. I think this is incorrect - perhaps in a literal view, no, the entire law would not have been struck down. But make no doubt about it, I would have lost health care coverage. My monthly payment would go from the current $84 all the way up to $600. There is no way I could afford to keep coverage.

                                                                                                          [–]loudnoises461 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                                                          Don't celebrate yet Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services may still bring the whole thing down.

                                                                                                          [–]_supernovasky_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                                          Shit. When does this one get heard and whats the premise behind it?

                                                                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)

                                                                                                            [–]squattmunki 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                            I have nothing but good things happen since the Affordable Care Act went into place. Preventive care is covered 100%, I was able to stay on my mothers healthcare plan until 26. That meant I was double covered since I had my own job and health insurance. My moms plan saved me $1,000 alone getting my wisdom teeth removed. I had to have other medical tests done and saved a lot on those too.

                                                                                                            So far so good with Obama care. It will change over time sure, but for the better like most laws.

                                                                                                            [–]somerandomguy03 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                                                                                                            So now that it has cleared all of these hurdles, and everybody is required by law to have health insurance, can we focus on really fixing the ACA by pushing for a real socialized healthcare system like the rest of the modern world?

                                                                                                            [–]FrekBoxCar [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                                                                                            Actaully everybody is required by law to have health insruacne not healthcare. ACA is nothing but political payoff to the private health insurance it has nothing to do with providing actual healthcare. By increasing the wealth of the private health insurance companies this actually is pushing the country away from a socialized healtcare system.

                                                                                                            [–]FalloutBoS 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                                            Thank you SCOTUS, from the have nots struggling to survive.

                                                                                                            [–]Dohada 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                                            The reactions on fox news are hilarious. They're so mad.

                                                                                                            [–]Kevin-W 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                                            What a relief! It would have been a major disaster if millions had lost their subsidies.

                                                                                                            [–]skbl17 10ポイント11ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                                                                            "Activist judges! Activist judges! The America we know and love is dead, sold out to Obama's Marxist socialism!!!1!!!"/s

                                                                                                            In other news, no same-sex marriage decision today, but there is an extra sitting tomorrow morning.

                                                                                                            [–]HSChronic 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                                                                            I really can't wait to hear them rule in favor of it. It just seems pretty fucking crazy when a super catholic country like Ireland can pass same sex marriage but people in this country can't. This is a country of religious freedom so we can't have same sex marriage because it is a sin.

                                                                                                            [–]beelzeflub 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                            Given Ruth Bader Ginsburg's tone at that wedding she performed, I expect good news. I'm excited! NOTORIOUS RBG

                                                                                                            [–]Testiclese 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                            Mmmmmmmm. I can just taste the reactionary, conservative tears this week. Mmmmmm so salty and delicious - if there was a Lay's flavor, I'd buy it. "Conservative tears and vinegar". All we need is Hilary to become President. Not cause she's awesome, but just to watch their blood pressure rise and their fat, rosy cheeks get flushed with rage. mmmmmmm. Yes.

                                                                                                            [–]nerf_herder1986 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                            Between this decision and that one, it'll be like the conservative apocalypse. I already have my popcorn in the microwave.

                                                                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                                                                [–]Thats-WhatShe-Said_ 19ポイント20ポイント  (23子コメント)

                                                                                                                Thank God. Can you imagine being seen as literally the ONLY first world country legislating to REMOVE healthcare from its citizens? Ugh.

                                                                                                                [–]OneOfDozens 19ポイント20ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                                                                                We still don't have single payer

                                                                                                                [–]Thats-WhatShe-Said_ 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                                                Yes, and hopefully we'll get there, but this is better than nothing until an improved system comes along.

                                                                                                                [–]Mister_DK 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                most don't, hth.

                                                                                                                universal =/= single payer. You can have nationalized like the UK, reimbursed like France, single payer like Canada, mandated and tightly regulated like germany, the swiss system which is probably the closest to the ACA... whole lot of paths to it. The end goal is universal, not the specific model for it.

                                                                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (13 返事)

                                                                                                                    [–]404-FuckNotFound 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                                                    QUESTION: Does the color coded map indicate that the darker states use the ACA subsidies more than the lighter states? That would be funny, because all the dark states are in Republican, Bible Belt states.

                                                                                                                    [–]DamienJaxx 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    I like how in those maps a majority of participants are in republican states/areas. Good on those people voting and defending a party that wants to destroy the ACA rather than what actually benefits them personally.

                                                                                                                    [–]Nekrophyle 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    I feel like I have seen this headline before. More than once.

                                                                                                                    [–]Slimerbacca 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Conservatives had several years to pass health insurance reform and did nothing, NOW they want to do it. How convenient!

                                                                                                                    [–]DavidIckeyShuffle 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                                                    FUCKING THANK YOU!

                                                                                                                    I'm in the middle of a lot health issues and I would have been supremely fucked if this decision with the other way.

                                                                                                                    [–]SiberianShibe 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Republicans could care less about people like you and me. Fuck them

                                                                                                                    [–]Minxie 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Lots of people were predicting this was the end. What a smacking this ruling is, gonna be lots of angry conservatives.

                                                                                                                    [–]piratelordking 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Not going to lie I was pretty nervous that they would rule against it but it's good to see I was wrong.

                                                                                                                    Gonna put on Fox News to see how this is the end of America.

                                                                                                                    [–]SiberianShibe 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    It's absolutely hilarious right now. Their tears are delicious.

                                                                                                                    [–]Graphitetshirt 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Cool. So this issue is finally settled right? We can move on? Focus on more pressing issues? Please?

                                                                                                                    [–]savemejebus0 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Jesus I was worried about this one. Whew!

                                                                                                                    [–]btafan 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Some zingers from the dissent:

                                                                                                                    “But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

                                                                                                                    “Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!”

                                                                                                                    “Contrivance, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!”

                                                                                                                    “What are the odds, do you think, that the same slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places?”

                                                                                                                    “Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly.”

                                                                                                                    “So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

                                                                                                                    “The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.”

                                                                                                                    [–]agen_kolar 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    I'm relieved, but not surprised. I imagine the gay marriage ruling will also be 6-3, with probably the same dissenters.

                                                                                                                    [–]jonnyclueless 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    The mega rich argue about how unfair this is to them.

                                                                                                                    [–]dyeusph2ter 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Oh, the FoxNews tears are glorious. The best part is how they're trying to spin this as a win for Republicans:

                                                                                                                    Now they don't have to legislate or actually come up with any ideas, they can just continue muckraking the ideas of other people that actually want to get shit done.

                                                                                                                    (paraphrasing, of course)

                                                                                                                    [–]jwitch 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                                                                                    Why is this allowed in /r/news when politics is apparently banned in this subbreddit?

                                                                                                                    http://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/3azxth/are_reddit_modsadmins_censoring_tpp_posts_how/

                                                                                                                    When it comes to the TPP, posts have completely vanished in the last week: http://imgur.com/f6szAbo Mods are actively censoring TTP posts. I encourage people to point this out in other /r/news political news threads. (I'm not against politics in /r/news)

                                                                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (232 返事)