[johnforbes]

If the language of the law is clear, a judge upholds.

There's nothing to interpret. The legislature has spoken and the language is clear.

Instead, Roberts said his goal was to preserve the law, and so for the second time he rewrote it to make it into something it was not.

So what means anything?

If the plain language of a law means nothing, and if he Constitution means nothing, then isn't America merely a single branch government where only what the Executive says means a thing?

[sillydaddy]

A dictatorship by any other name would stink just as bad ....

[johnforbes]

With the Obama-loving media, it does begin to feel like North Korea where only praise is permitted.

I thought for a long time that Roberts, who was a weasel on the first Obamacare case, would be one on the second too.

Sadly, that was correct.

The language was crystal clear, and there was nothing to interpret.

So the Sup Ct acted as a mini-legislature and rewrote Obamacare.

A sad day for America, which is losing greatness at a very rapid rate.

[Benny]

A great day for America. A great help to working people. I wish they would have done this when I was young and working hard. Thanks to SCOTUS, Obama, Roberts, and the Dems and Pubs who voted for ...as I can see this legislation helping many of my co-workers and their families. Thank you.

[RealJustme]

A great day for America. A great help to working people. I wish they would have done this when I was young and working hard. Thanks to SCOTUS, Obama, Roberts, and the Dems and Pubs who voted for ...as I can see this legislation helping many of my co-workers and their families. Thank you.

No it's a great day for insurance companies and doctors making millions, the government insures they profit from tax payers' money no matter what. The average Obamacare patient has to pay the first $7,000.00 (if they had $7,000.00 for healthcare insurance they wouldn't need Obamcare. Then only 30% of hospitals and doctors accept Obamacare patients because of the red tape. So if you have Obamacare you can brag you have medical insurance but unless you lied to get it, you can't afford to use it.

[Intrepid]

As they say in Chicago, "the fix is in."
Someone, somewhere has got the goods on Roberts.

[Clownkicker]

It was a six-to-three decision, dimwit.

Even if someone owned Roberts it would still be five-to-four at best without that supposed ownership.
You still lose. That's what losers do.

[Intrepid]

Loser Lucky, Roberts was anticipated to be a strict adherent to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has proved to be a disappointment. In the first BummerCare decision it was posited by some that be was playing chess while everyone else was engaged in a game of checkers. Sadly he was given too much credit. Clearly he has a nigger in the woodpile (or a nigger has him by the short hairs) and someone knows about it.
Or maybe Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg gave him a Hoover to change his vote.

[johnforbes]

Roberts knew very well that Obamacare's indiv mandate was not a tax, but he pretended it was in the first Obamacare ruling.

Roberts knew the subsidy language was very, very clear. You get no subsidy unless a state sets up an exchange.

So Roberts had to say, well, the whole intent of the law was to increase coverage.

Sure, but you never get to intent unless the lingo is unclear, which it wasn't.

So, in trying to preserve the status of the Sup Court as an institution, Roberts has made a fool of himself and a mockery of the court.

What he should have done is overturn the subsidy stuff, then force Congress to fix it if it wanted to.

Instead, Roberts issued a second ruling which he knew perfectly well was absurd.

[Malcolm]

Judge Napolitano: If Supreme Court Likes a Statute They Will Change Meanings of Words to Support It

http://tinyurl.com/oqxfqle
http://investmentwatchblog.com/who-bene ... re-ruling/

[johnforbes]

Give Bernie Sanders credit for saying he is a socialist and wants socialized medicine.

That's honest.

But it was dishonest for Roberts to say that the challenge to Obamacare was "very strong," then ignore that and rewrite the law to salvage it.

Each and every aspect of Obamacare has been a lie.

[Clownkicker]

It's called an opinion, johnny.
All your whining about it won't change his (or anyone else's) opinion.

You claim to have a first class legal background.
So go get appointed to some court and set it all right for us.
Or you could just continue whining.

Which will it be? Anyone here willing to take odds?

[elklindo69]

According to Forbestardo's logic, the government set out to create a law for it to be repealed on appeal...

Nicely done dumb ass...

[johnforbes]

It is fitting that Obamacare generated two of the most deliberately absurd rulings in history.

First, nobody thought -- or thinks -- the indiv mandate as a tax. It was a penalty. We all know that.

Second, the lingo about the subsidies was crystal clear. A child could figure it out. So the Court pretended some interpretation was needed when clearly it was not.

Give Bernie Sanders credit for saying he is a socialist and wants socialized medicine.

That's honest.

But it was dishonest for Roberts to say that the challenge to Obamacare was "very strong," then ignore that and rewrite the law to salvage it.

Each and every aspect of Obamacare has been a lie.