Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies
AP BREAKING NEWS: IN A MAJOR WIN for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court has upheld ObamaCare subsidies in states that did not set up their own health care exchanges.

Film at 11.... 🤐

They should have CBID Subsidies !🇨🇮

what's the opposite of subsidies..?? 🤔



That's what we can expect soon... 😟

Higher taxes.

Those Bassards..!! 😠

Like the Supreme Court really had a choice?!?! If there is no guberment subsidies, the whole thing collapses. That is how effective (or ineffective) the system is. I refuse to purchase anything just because the guberment says I have to!

I'm still waiting for the big "O" to pas a law saying we all have to buy a Chevy. 🐴

I'm still waiting for my free Obamaphone.

ya, still no free Obama-phone for X.. 😞

"Oh Lord wont'cha buy me a Mercedes Benz"

I’m still waiting for my Reagan years trickle down….

you were prolly standing in the wrong place... 😟

Story of my life.....

Scalia leads scathing dissent on ObamaCare ruling, dubs law 'SCOTUScare'
Published June 25, 2015

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his conservative colleagues may have been overruled in Thursday's decision upholding ObamaCare subsidies, but they didn't go down without a fight.

The firebrand conservative justice delivered one of the most scathing and linguistically creative dissents in recent memory. In a 21-page rebuttal, Scalia and two other justices tore into the Affordable Care Act and the court's handling of it over the years -- effectively accusing their colleagues of twisting the law for the sake of preserving President Obama's signature policy.

“Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of,” Scalia wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The case itself centered on language in the original law that technically limited subsidies to people buying insurance in exchanges set up by the states. Opponents said this made subsidies through the federal exchange invalid.

“You would think the answer would be obvious -- so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it,” Scalia wrote.

The majority, though, upheld subsidies everywhere, arguing that is what Congress intended.

Scalia in his dissent scolded his colleagues' handling of Affordable Care Act challenges, writing, “We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare,” referring to the several times the high court has ruled on controversial parts of ObamaCare.

At one point, he panned the majority's reasoning as "This is applesauce man... pure applesauce."

Scalia essentially made two major points: he accused the court of playing favorites by letting politics get in the way, and claimed the majority’s opinion contained “somersaults of statutory interpretation.”

The conservative justice attacked the logic behind the ruling as “interpretive jiggery-pokery” and said the result shows "words no longer have meaning."

He wrote: “The Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers.”

Drilling down to the language of the case itself, he wrote: “The court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government,’ That is of course quite absurd, and the court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”

He noted the other justices have stepped in twice now to block what he considered worthy challenges to the law, including the 2012 case challenging the individual mandate. Scalia suggested the court is now in a position of protecting the law, writing: "Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved."

The Thursday decision was 6-3.

Film at 11... 🤐

This was a correct and no brainer decision and easy to predict. What a waste of money all the attacks have been.

No brainer what "States" means......apparently not.

That's applesauce man... pure applesauce...!! 😠

A conservative court decided it and it is consistent. It was actually wasted time and money.

Conservative?

It is interesting how many ar so pro law suit when it suits them. Don't like the law.... kill it in congress rather than all these frivolous suits that are bound to fail from the start.

it was interpretive jiggery-pokery..!! 😠

It is a conservative court by most folks account. Absolutely.