[VIDEO] Chief Justice Roberts affirms: ObamaCare was poorly written

While Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a blow to ObamaCare foes with a majority opinion upholding subsidies, he backed up the law's opponents on one point: The language in the Affordable Care Act was kind of a mess. 

"The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting," he wrote. 

The 6-3 Supreme Court decision Thursday upheld the legality of ObamaCare subsidies nationwide. The case centered on language in the law that technically limited subsidies to those who purchase insurance in exchanges established by the states. 

Opponents argued this rendered subsidies invalid for insurance purchased through the federal HealthCare.gov. 

But Roberts and the majority ruled that Congress never intended that. "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid," he wrote. 

Further, the majority opinion reasoned that the law itself was poorly written, and so the court must look to Congress' intent -- rather than the specific language in the law itself. 

"Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through 'the traditional legislative process,'" Roberts wrote. 

He proceeded to cite process issues that Republicans have long complained contributed to the bill being rushed. 

Roberts wrote: "And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as 'reconciliation,' which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate's normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. ... 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

SCOTUS grants Obama another gift, ignores the English language to uphold ObamaCare subsidies

And that’s that. Obama, as usual, gets his way. It was predictable, really. Having abandoned the meaning of words within the English language, the Supreme Court is now free to ignore the actual text of laws and pretend things were written that never were.

As the AP reports:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement. It came the same day the court gave the administration an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.

John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which stated that the law was upheld because:

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. Under petitioners’ reading, the Act would not work in a State with a Federal Exchange. As they see it, one of the Act’s three major reforms—the tax credits—would not apply. And a second major reform—the coverage requirement—would not apply in a meaningful way, because so many individuals would be exempt from the requirement without the tax credits. If petitioners are right, therefore, only one of the Act’s three major reforms would apply in States with a Federal Exchange.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....