Obamacare

Obamacare Returns to SCOTUS. What Will Roberts Do?

The Supreme Court prepares for another legal showdown over Obamacare.

|

Three years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court was gearing up to rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, most observers pegged Anthony Kennedy as the justice to watch. As one Slate reporter confidently put it, "The fate of health care reform is where it was yesterday, in the hands of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy." (My own prediction: Keep your eyes on Roberts.)

But as it turned out, Kennedy was not the justice to watch. The fate of health care reform actually rested in the hands of Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted to uphold Obamacare as an act of conservative judicial restraint.

Credit: WhiteHouse.gov

This Wednesday Obamacare returns to the Supreme Court for another legal showdown. And this time, all eyes are properly focused on the chief justice. "There's one very good reason to think the chief justice will rule for the government again," asserts liberal lawyer Brianne Gorod. "He's too good a lawyer to do otherwise." Conservative law professor John Yoo, on the other hand, argues that this latest Obamacare dispute "will give the Chief Justice the opportunity to atone for his judicial sin of [three] years ago."

What will Roberts do this time around? There is at least some reason to think he may vote against the Obama administration. Here's why.

At issue this week in King v. Burwell is whether the Obama administration illegally implemented the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by allowing tax subsidies to issue to persons who bought insurance on health care exchanges established by the federal government. According to the legal challengers, Obamacare unambiguously forbids that result because the text of the law allows tax subsides to issue only in response to purchases made from an "Exchange established by the State," not from exchanges established by the Department of Health and Human Services in the 34 states that refused to set up their own.

The White House, by contrast, maintains that "the phrase 'Established by the State'…is a term of art that encompasses an Exchange established for a particular State by HHS." In other words, according to the Obama administration, the law's text does allow the issuance of tax credits via federally established exchanges because that result best achieves the law's broader purpose of providing "affordable care" nationwide.

Back in his 2012 Obamacare opinion, Chief Justice Roberts argued that "federal statutes" are owed a "full measure of deference" by the Supreme Court. He then granted that deference by saving the health care law from constitutional obliteration.

But the role of judicial deference is not so clear cut in the present case. According to the White House, Congress intended tax credits to be available regardless of which government entity established a health care exchange, which means the Court must show "appropriate respect to the choices Congress has made in the exercise of its democratically accountable authority."

But did Congress actually make the choice that the White House now ascribes to it? Or did the democratically unaccountable I.R.S. make the choice in order to facilitate the implementation of this complicated and unwieldy federal law? According to the legal challengers, "this case concerns an IRS rule that purports to implement, but in fact contradicts, the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

If the chief justice agrees with the challengers on that point, then the principles of judicial deference may point him in a specific direction: Namely, Roberts may decide to grant a "full measure of deference" to Obamacare by rejecting the White House's contested interpretation of it ("a term of art") in favor of the text that Congress specifically wrote into law ("Exchange established by the State").

That approach could prove quite appealing to the chief justice. It would allow Roberts to rule against the Obama administration in King v. Burwell while citing back to his own pro-Obamacare ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. He would get to adopt the same deferential posture towards Congress in both cases (while lecturing his inevitable liberal critics on their inconsistency).

Will Roberts take this route? We'll get our first signs of his thinking during oral argument on Wednesday.

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on Prohibitionists' Failure to Stop Legal Pot in Washington, D.C.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’ll try to please everybody by making some shit up.

  2. What Will Roberts Do?

    Why, he’ll shit the bed again, because it’s not his job to save voters from the consequences of their votes.

    1. But doesn’t this mean he coukd decide against the Obama administration this time? After all, it is not the court’s job to protect the White House from their legislative language choices.

      1. Took the words right off my keyboard.

        Not gonna save Congress from its own ass?

      2. Actually, yes it is, AdamJ. The first OCare case features Roberts creating the penaltax out of thin air as a “saving interpretation” of the statute.

        IOW, according to Roberts, SCOTUS has a duty to rewrite statutes if necessary to keep them from being unconstitutional.

        1. Oh. So it’s just us he hates.

    2. Why, he’ll shit the bed again, because it’s not his job to save voters from the consequences of their votes.

      I just wish he’d save some of us from the consequences of other people’s votes.

    3. Actually it is his job to save voters from elected officials who ram crap through without broad public consent. That is exactly why we have a 3rd judicial branch composed of people outside of the electoral process, it is to check the other two branches which are prone to do absurd things.

      The US is a republic, not a democracy, voters influence but do not have absolute say.

      Conservative judges not fulfilling this role, while liberal judges do, is the reason we have this mess today. If the liberal judges pushed civil rights forward against voters, while the conservative judges held back the welfare state against voters, we’d be in a very different place right now.

      1. If voters don’t have absolute say, who does? It’s people, no matter what. You can’t get away from that.

        1. Voters don’t have any say on anything other than who is elected to office, Robert.

          Geez.

          1. Voters don’t have any say on anything other than who is elected to office, Robert.

            And damned little say even then, since the candidates are selected for them.

        2. It is people all the way down.

  3. The liberal side argues feelings and intent and for letting the bureaucracy decide what the legislature meant, while the right is arguing clear text?

    What will Roberts do? Voting against Obamacare this time will mean his contortions last time need atonement. He’ll vote against the challengers.

  4. Why does everyone keep stopping at “Exchange established by the State”? The clause goes on to include the phrase “under section” X (I keep forgetting the exact number) while federal exchanges are covered under an entirely different section. By stopping at the word ‘state’ and excluding the key reference, you let the people ideologically in favor the illegality pull a “it depends on the meaning of ‘is'” on you.

    1. Good point. It’s ? 1311, and that section clearly refers to “the States” and “each State.”

    2. this. the law goes out of its way to distiniguish between the state exchanges (1311) and the fed exchanges (1321), and it does so repeatedly throughout the law.

      if “…by the state” were a one-off instance and was not clarified by the subsequent “under 1311” then i’d actually agree with the law’s proponents. it would be sufficiently vague so that deference from the court was due.

      but there’s no ambiguity here. and it makes perfect sense too – it was intended to bludgen the states into building their own exchanges so the feds didn’t have to deal with the headache.

      1. Absolutely 100% correct, Doc. I’m a lawyer, by the way.

    3. Something about another Section directing the HHS to establish “such exchange” if the state doesn’t. Libbies are hoping that “such exchange” is the same as the State exchange.

      The problem is, Obamacare doesn’t say “an exchange established by this Act” all over the place. It says “an exchange established by the State.”

      I could give you a link to Kos where some deludoid named Armando is making the case, but it’s more of an anthropology lesson than a law lesson.

  5. More importantly, what will the other justices do? Oh wait, vote party line rather than weigh the case vs the Constitution.

    1. Kagan is an economic illiterate who will vote to keep the “free money” flowing.

    2. Ginsburg’s already made it clear that she will vote to save PPACA.

      1. Only if she is sober!

    3. It’s not about any constitution in this case, but of interpret’n of statute. Funny that so many commenters, not only here, say the court’s job is only to determine constitutionality; what about cases where constitutionality’s not at issue?

      1. so many commenters, not only here, say the court’s job is only to determine constitutionality

        Only job? No. I don’t recall anyone around here (or elsewhere) saying that.

        They are also a court of appeals for the entire federal system, which hears many cases involving statutory interpretation.

  6. What will Roberts do?

    Why save the “law” yet again.

  7. Roberts needs to host a wine tasting. Then a whine tasting.

    1. Roberts needs to be the guest of honor at a swine tasting.

  8. It will be interesting to see what sort of sausage Justice Roberts grinds out this time to save ObamaCare.

  9. Does this mean that there can be 2 separate and distinct penaltaxes?

  10. Obamacare Returns to SCOTUS. What Will Roberts Do?The Supreme Court prepares for another legal showdown over Obamacare.

    Knuckle under after the NSA reminds him of those photos of him and that sheep…

  11. Likely to be far more important, Republicans have pledged that if Obamacare subsidies go down, nobody will get hit with higher premiums than they’ve already committed to pay. But they (via Senator Hatch) mention a transition period and there is yet to be a credible alternative to Obamacare, by anyone.

    The subbsidized folks will get all the human concern, but Medicare is by far the higher priority. And vouchers Medicare vouychers stupidly address the wrong market. Insurance is not healthcare, and Medicare has always had competititon in the actual healthcare market.

    1. There are credible alternatives from inside and outside Congress, but Congress hasn’t settled on one yet.

      In the end I’m sure they’ll go for the most elegant solution, i.e. wait until the last minute and then cave.

      1. There are credible alternatives from inside and outside Congress

        Name one. I already explained why Cato’s Medicare vouchers are fucking stupid.

        1. Harry Reid has swept several under the rug I have read and since he doesn’t let them see the light of day no one outside the inner circle knows what they are called.

          1. OneOut|3.2.15 @ 5:14PM|#
            Harry Reid has swept several under the rug I have read and since he doesn’t let them see the light of day no one outside the inner circle knows what they are called.

            But YOU know they exist!!!!
            There has never been a single one.

    2. there is yet to be a credible alternative to Obamacare, by anyone.

      cough, cough. You win today’s Marcotte Trophy.

      1. What’s not credible about root-and-branch repeal?

        1. Obama’s signature.

          1. Ah, well, if it has to be something Obama will sign to be credible, then there are no credible alternatives.

            However, I was working off of a different definition of credibility. One that is not determined by a narcissistic sociopath.

            1. RC, bingo.

            2. In this age of men, not laws, the definition of credibility changes. With any luck, it will change again in January 2017.

            3. However, I was working off of a different definition of credibility. One that is not determined by a narcissistic sociopa

              In other words, you were too fucking stupid to know the sociopath has the power of veto!

              But even allowing for that, there are still no credible alternatives from the right. Or I’ll ask you again to name one.

        2. What’s not credible about root-and-branch repeal

          The dumbass wing often says stupid things like that. I see you’ve already conceded your silly error.

          But there’s no credible alternative anyhow. Being a libetarian, you don’t know that Medicare swallows $250 billion per year in subsidies from personal income taxes — roughly 1/4 of the entire Medicare spending.

          Again because you’re in the dumbass repeal wing, I must explain that means Medicare is running a quarter trillion is deficits which no longer come from the so-called Trust Fund.

          You’ll also never learn that Medicare gets ANOTHER $150 billion in subsidies from private insurers. Which also makes mere repeal a dumbfuck answer.

          Finally, Cato’s Medicare vouchers increase competition among insurance companies! Umm, can we control new car prices more competition between Allsate and GEICO?? duh.

          Umm, Medicare already has competiton, always has. Seniors pick their own doctors,but — as REAL free markters have been saying for decades, all they need is “skin in the game”

          Do you even know what “skin in the game” means– which is also why repeal alone is a dumbfuck idea to anyone with a junior high knowledge of market economics.

          Just keep following your tribal loyalty. Stay misinformed, and repeat memorized anti-gummnt slogans. Let the adults deal with this.

          Any more I can help you with?

          1. Any more I can help you with?

            Can you go over the 9 – 9 – .9 plan again? Feel free to triple or quadruple post to accomplish this.

            Thanx.

            1. I haven’t updated it since 1996

              http://libertyissues.com/taxfed.htm

              And it’s a package with my expansion of Reagan’s groundbreaking New Federalism

              http://libertyissues.com/federalism.htm

      2. cough, cough. You win today’s Marcotte Trophy.

        cough, cough, you win today’s Coward Trophy.

        1. Mike. You win today’s John McCain Get Off My Lawn award. First prize is an autographed Ron Paul headshot.

          1. Mike. You win today’s John McCain Get Off My Lawn award. First prize is an autographed Ron Paul headshot.

            But you failed to provide the requested credible alternative to Obamacare, which is the thread you quoted from:

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5125005

            Not quite as bad as you having been documented as a liar here:

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

            1. Mike:
              (1) I wasn’t debating a credible alternative to the ACA. Wishful Thinking Fallacy. When you make stuff up about people because you have poor arguments it undermines any actual libertarian argument you might have and turns non-libertarians off. Especially the all bold rage part.

              (2) This is rich. Wishful Thinking again. Ignoring Key Evidence. Using the Wrong Reasons. In other stories I have referenced lesbians, ISIS, and socialists. Making a reference to a group does not put me on that group.

              1. I wasn’t debating a credible alternative to the ACA. Wishful Thinking Fallacy. When you make stuff up about people because you have poor arguments it undermines any actual libertarian argument you might have and turns non-libertarians off.

                Umm, as I already explained, that’s what the thread topic is, that YOU cited from (lol) Link to proof:

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5125005

                When you make stuff up about people because you have poor arguments

                (snicker) I just documented your bullshit. But i”m flattered that you now copy my tactics — but without the documantation I always provide.

                So I’ll add that to your proven lie here.

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

                1. Mike, that is what you were discussing with someone else. Not with me. Your level of cognitive dissonance is amazing.

                  You have documented that I used the word “Christian” in a post. Muslim. Buddhist. Hebrew. Based on your (and only your) logic I suppose I am also part of those tribes too.

                2. Mike – the Village Idiot and Town Liar.

  12. So, people in states run by reactionaries will have to pay more for health insurance because they won’t get federal subsidies? I a. live in California and b. have a job so this means that I’ll get a subsidy if I ever lose my job and I didn’t notice anything different when obamacare raised its ugly totalitarian head. Thus, I’m left shrugging my shoulders a little over this.

    Maybe, just maybe, when people that make under 40k/yr realize that they’ll be paying more because their right-wing governor was trying to cozy up with the Tea Party they’ll stop a minute and consider whether it’s time to stop voting for politicians that pass laws that undercut how much money they have in their bank accounts. I doubt it’s going to happen, but I can at least hope.

    1. Rich Weinstein noticed the changes. He’s the humble investment banker who lost his plan, premiums doubled, so he decided to find out more about this “Jonathan Gruber” whose name kept popping up everywhere as the architect of the law. Funny thing, one of the videos Weinstein dug up has become part of the challengers’ Supreme Court case.

    2. So, people in states run by reactionaries will have to pay more for health insurance because they won’t get federal subsidies?

      Not just that. Businesses in states run by reactionaries won’t have to pay (one of?) the OCare penalties on businesses, as they are triggered by one of your employees getting a tax subsidy.

      Note the top gray box in the middle column:

      http://kff.org/infographic/emp…..-care-act/

      That’s what this case is really about. It largely immunizes businesses from the employer mandates.

      1. Yay for Walmart! Is this part of the conservative campaign to address income inequality?

        1. How do you figure this is some conservative campaign?

          That language was put into the statute, voted for exclusively by Democrats, and signed by a Democrat.

          1. How do you figure this is some conservative campaign?

            He’s saying that Wal-Mart’s labor costs will continue being subsidized by taxpayers. I guess you don’t follow this stuff.

            That’s true, but the subsidy would be even higher at above-market wage levels, which today’s libertarians are too fucking stupid to explain (or even grasp).

      2. Note the top gray box in the middle column:

        This is not your day! Follow the “NO” arrows following that box.

    3. You are not self employed. I am. We were on a Kaiser plan for 6 years before Obamacare. Worked just fine for my wife’s two pregnancies and had a reasonable deductible. Then we got booted off of it because it wasn’t good enough for Ocare. We were able to sign back up with Kaiser and our premium went down 15 percent or so. Yea socialism!! But then our deductible went up 400% and copays for prescriptions and visits doubled.

      I cannot wait till you have to feel some of the joys of it.

      1. We were able to sign back up with Kaiser and our premium went down 15 percent or so. Yea socialism!! But then our deductible went up 400% and copays for prescriptions and visits doubled.

        Yeah but now you can get that Pap smear.

        1. And coverage for pregnancy.

          1. No sarc. Agree with this post.

    4. Since you’re a piece of shit that would walk out on his obligations, your opinions mean exactly jack and shit.

      1. Since you’re a piece of shit that would walk out on his obligations, your opinions mean exactly jack and shit.

        Take a nap. And stop embarrassing libertarianism to all the non-libertarians reading here.

        1. Keeper of the faith. Mike, just curious. Do you know what incident to which Nate is referring?

          1. Designate:

            Since you’re a piece of shit that would walk out on his obligations, your opinions mean exactly jack and shit.

            Mike

            Take a nap. And stop embarrassing libertarianism to all the non-libertarians reading here.

            Chumby

            Keeper of the faith. Mike, just curious. Do you know what incident to which Nate is referring?

            Ummm, Sparky, I was talking about his thuggish language. I’m not surprised you’d defend such aggression … or I’ll apologize if you’re merely illiterate … since we all know you’ve been documented as a liar.

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

            1. (1) You use ad hominems often and yet take exception when someone else does? I don’t want to poison the well. Just mentioning it.

              (2) I couldn’t care about the language. This is supposed to be a “free minds” area. I was defending the line of questioning. If you are the speech police, then I think that falls under Irrelevant Authority.

              (3) Again, Wishful Thinking and Drawing the Wrong Conclusion, and Ignoring the Counter-evidence.

              1. (1) You use ad hominems often and yet take exception when someone else does?

                (snicker) An insupported accusation is an ad hominem, Sluggo. Check the dictionary,

                dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem

                I also called out and proved your earlier string of ad hominems here: Pay attention

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129586

                What you do is called “name-calling” Keep showing your thuggishness (documented herein)

                1. Your posts to UCrawford and Sevo are riddled with epithets.

                  You continue to align me with a group of which I am not a member then state I am a liar after I correct you on it. That is the very definition of ad hominem.

                  The only thing you are documenting is your own ignorance.

    5. Too funny. You are actually using the same logic that Gruber used to described why that part of the law was written the way it was written. So, besides the fact that it doesn’t seem to have worked quite they way the intended and could possibly bring the whole thing down. Think about the fact the the ACA architects where using “people that make under 40k/yr” as pawns in their fun little game.

      1. You mean I think people are stupid if they vote against their economic interests because they don’t like abortion, are homophobic, don’t like Black people being President, or because the preacher told them so? Ding, ding, ding… Yeah, I think those people are stupid. Does all this gnashing of teeth amongst the right-wingers on this website come down to the fact that an MIT professor thinks he’s smarter than you? Well, duh , he probably is.

        As I said, the conservative campaign to overturn this law won’t really affect me one way or the other so it’s a little bit of a snoozer for me. What’s interesting to me is to watch working class people argue so passionately that they should pay more for their health insurance because they don’t want to get a tax break from the government. I guess it’s too much like Welfare– and we all know who that goes to.

        1. Newsflash fucktard: We aren’t right-wingers.

        2. You mean I think people are stupid if they vote against their economic interests because they don’t like abortion, are homophobic, don’t like Black people being President, or because the preacher told them so? Ding, ding, ding

          And the reason you’re stupid is that you actually believe anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is that simple-minded.

          You remind me of a contractor I deployed with, who loved to impress people with how clever and well-read he was on subjects like the failures of capitalism, the base instincts of humanity, and how Marx had it all right when he talked about taking the system away from people. He liked to pawn the work he was supposed to be doing off onto soldiers, and got fired when he got caught banging one of them and for running a black market operation for alcohol. He only lasted as long as he did because he was an obsequious kiss-ass to the warrant officers who weren’t paying attention to what he was actually doing at work (not much). He also liked to tell people he was about 10 years younger than he was and tried to dress like the younger kids so he could be around people who didn’t realize how empty and shallow he was as a human being.

          Basically, you strike me as being a lot like him…pretty much a total piece of shit.

          1. And the reason you’re stupid is that you actually believe anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is that simple-minded.

            If so, then the balance of your comment shows you to be equally stupid, for the same reason. I mean where you call him “petty much a total piece of shit” … “empty and shallow as a human being … a ubiquitus kiss-ass ..”

            But yours is okay because of the “tribe” you’re in, right?

            1. Well, since you aren’t (as far as I can tell) a regular commenter here and we’ve all been dealing with amsoc a lot longer than you have, I’m going to say that we’re in a much better position to judge his particular hypocrisies and stupidities than you are.

              And, since as far as I can tell, you and I have never had any interactions at all on this site, you’re in absolutely no position to judge what “tribe” I’m in…because I guarantee that you haven’t the first clue, noob.

              I mean where you call him “petty much a total piece of shit”

              At least I know how to execute an accurate copy-and-paste of someone else’s comment when I attempt to criticize them. Off you go, fucktard.

              1. Well, since you aren’t (as far as I can tell) a regular commenter here.

                Well, you know wrong, dumbfuck. And how does that excuse you being a thug and a bully? Now we’ll see you’re also a jackass.

                In 2000 I ran for WA state Insurance Commissioner.

                Now click healthcare at this link for what I was writing in the 1990s.

                http://LibertyIssues.com

                At least I know how to execute an accurate copy-and-paste of someone else’s comment when I attempt to criticize them. .

                (OMG) You deny calling him a “pretty much total piece of shit” at this link???

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5125281

                Search for my name in the history of the Libertarian Party, (1974)

                http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

                One more time:

                shows you to be equally stupid for the same reason. I mean where you call him “pretty much a total piece of shit” … “empty and shallow as a human being … a ubiquitus kiss-ass ..”

                Thug!

                Off you go, fucktard.

                Go bully somebody dumber than you. Oh, wait ?.
                (walks away laughing)

                1. Sport, I don’t give a shit who you are or what office you ran for. Nobody elected you arbiter of standards on Reason.com’s comment section, and if you don’t like how I or anyone else chooses to respond to another commenter, then you can fuck straight off and take your 15 year old stories about what you once did elsewhere.

                  Your Libertarian Party history on Wikipedia buys you exactly dick in terms of credibility…except for Gary Johnson in 2012 your party has been a sad joke and (being as I live in Washington) an irrelevant footnote here. I live in an area filled with libertarians and your organization has zero presence among voters here. So basically you’re just another blogger who once tossed his name on a ballot…not the nominated protector of idiots like American Socialist who has been told by almost the entire commentariat here in no uncertain terms that he’s a piece of shit (and yet he keeps coming back).

                  But I’m sure he’ll be happy to know that you think he’s such a weak-willed imbecile that he needs someone like yourself to come stick up for him…I’m sure he’ll be so grateful that he’ll immediately give up that maidenly virtue of his that he’s been saving for that special champion. 🙂

                  1. Sport, I don’t give a shit who you are or what office you ran for.

                    (snicker)

                    Nobody elected you arbiter of standards on Reason.com’s comment section

                    Your’re the fucking thug who said I haven’t been here long enough, so cut your bullshit.

                    , and if you don’t like how I or anyone else chooses to respond to another commenter, then you can fuck straight off

                    You’re the bully shouting people down. (lol)

                    Still a fucking bullly. I’ll say whatever I want, whenever I want. If you don;t like it, you can fuck straight off.

                    I call you out you throw a hissy fit. Typical of your ilk.

                    If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out, you whiny punk.

                    idiots like American Socialist who has been told by almost the entire commentariat here in no uncertain terms that he’s a piece of shit (and yet he keeps coming back).

                    Does ANYBODY obey your threats? Cave in to your trashmouth bullying? How long until you get the message?

                    Go kick a kitten, thug.

                    (walks away laughing)

                    1. You’re boring and you’re stupid…even for a pseudo-libertarian fraud.

                      Does ANYBODY obey your threats?

                      I realize that you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, but even american socialist (dim though he is) understands the difference between “threat” and “ridicule”.

                      So yes…you are officially dumber than the guy who comes on a libertarian website and proclaims that he’s a socialist. Congratulations on being the lowest common denominator…you can go tell all your brethern at the Washington LP how you’ve failed yet again.

                      And congrats to you too, AmSoc…you’ve been promoted from the lowest rung on the Reason comment social order. 🙂

                    2. UCraford brags about bullying ? even that he gangs up on commenters!

                      Idiots like American Socialist who has been told by almost the entire commentariat here in no uncertain terms that he’s a piece of shit (and yet he keeps coming back).

                      Halellujah! A commentariat of enforcers, shouting down and driving out any non-conformists to their Groupthink!

                      Dumber than a guy who brags about being a socialist on a libertarian website.

                      Mark your ballots. Who is the biggest disgrace on a libertarian website:

                      Brags about being a socialist?

                      Brags about repeated aggression, both alone and in a gang ? is too stupid to know libertarians can be socialists ? and that Ayn Rand defended hippie communes (gasp) ? apparently believes Israeli kibbutzim and hippie communes are populated by goose-stepping storm troopers ? and that the Oneida and Shaker communes maintained gulags ?. mindlessly believes all socialism is state socialism ?. all while drooling on its keyboard?

                      Vote totals announced tomorrow

                      (Rand said the hippies’ only error was assuming they had to become farmers to live in a commune)

                      (Hihn’s body becomes wracked by violent vomiting)

                    3. UCrawford : And the reason you’re stupid is that you actually believe anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is that simple-minded. ? an obsequious kiss-ass ? empty and shallow as a human being ?. .pretty much a total piece of shit.

                      Whew!

                      me: If so, then the balance of your comment shows you to be equally stupid, for the same reason. ? where you call him “pretty much a total piece of shit ..empty and shallow as a human being … a obsequious s kiss-ass..”

                      UCrawford Well, since you aren’t (as far as I can tell) a regular commenter here ?.

                      Well, you know wrong, dumbfuck.

                      UCrawford we’re in a much better position to judge his particular hypocrisies and stupidities … fucktard

                      How does that excuse you being a thug and a bully?

                      UCrawford: Off you go, fucktard.

                      Go bully somebody dumber than you. Oh, wait ?.

                      UCrawford ” and if you don’t like how I or anyone else chooses to respond to another commenter, then you can fuck straight off.

                      I’ll say whatever I want, whenever I want. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out, whiny punk.

                      UCrawford Idiots like American Socialist who has been told by almost the entire commentariat here in no uncertain terms that he’s a piece of shit (and yet he keeps coming back).

                      There we have it. A thug! How DARE anyone stick around when he’s foaming at the mouth! (gasp)

                    4. Dumber than a guy who brags about being a socialist on a libertarian website.

                      How does it feel to be so bad at life that people on websites who don’t even know you can figure out in five minutes and write you off as just another sad, old crank?

                    5. UCraford brags about bullying ? both alone and in a gang … on a libertarian website

                      Idiots like American Socialist who has been told by almost the entire commentariat here in no uncertain terms that he’s a piece of shit (and yet he keeps coming back).

                      Halellujah! A commentariat of enforcers, shouting down and driving out any non-conformists to their Groupthink! Proudly bragging:

                      Dumber than a guy who brags about being a socialist on a libertarian website.

                      Mark your ballots. Which is the biggest disgrace on a libertarian website:

                      a) Brags about being a socialist?

                      b) Brags about repeated aggression, both alone and in a gang ? is too stupid to know there are libertarian socialists ? or that hippie communes were defended by Ayn Rand (gasp) ? apparently believes Israeli kibbutzim and hippie communes are populated by goose-stepping storm troopers ? and that the Oneida and Shaker communes maintained gulags ?. mindlessly believes all socialism is state socialism ?. denies that his Libertarian Commentariat is as bigoted as a KKK Klaven … all while drooling on its keyboard in raging hatred?

                      Final vote totals will be announced at noon tomorrow.

                      (Rand said the hippies’ only error was assuming they had to become farmers to live in a commune. (snicker))

                    6. Random bold print: The hallmark of the man who has nothing to say but believes if he says it loudly then others won’t realize the dearth of content.

                      Does the retirement home know you’re off your meds?

                    7. How does your bullying and repeated aggression advance the cause of liberty

                      Who’s the greater threat to liberty, Barack Obama … or you?

                    8. Mike. When ypu think it is everyone else. It is possible it isn’t and instead the problem lies within.

                    9. Mike. When ypu think it is everyone else. It is possible it isn’t and instead the problem lies within.

                      I named one person, but I’ve listed you and him as companion thugs. Umm, you and UCrawfors are hardly “everyone else.” And we all know you’re a documented liar anyhow

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

                    10. Appeal to Common Opinion Fallacy.

                      This is enjoyable.

                    11. Appeal to Common Opinion Fallacy.

                      A quick glance at the immediately previous question will document THIS lie.
                      PLEASE keep showing more bullying.

                    12. “And we all know…” = Appeal to Common Opinion.

                      Nobody but you knows I am a Christian because I am not.

                      Anything else that isn’t really true you want to share with me about myself? And it doesn’t even have to be something to help bolster your fragile paradigm.

                    13. Village Idiot – keep violating the NAP. It takes away some of the focus from your stupidity and lies.

        3. Welfare goes mostly to poor whites. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

          You do seem to have an attitude of self-righteousness. I gather you think that people who disagree with you must have some character flaw.

          1. Welfare goes mostly to poor whites. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

            That’s because poor whites are far more numerous than poor blacks. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by posting a misleading statement. Blacks are nearly 40% of the welfare population, versus less than 10% of whites. That means blacks are four times more likely to be on welfare.

            You do seem to have an attitude of self-righteousness.

            (smile)

            I gather you think that people who disagree with you must have some character flaw

            Would he or she intentionally mislead to give the ILLUSION of a character flaw in somebody else?

            1. Village Idiot thinks it is the Town Elder. It is the Town Liar as well. But that’s about it.

        4. Ummm, I don’t care if he thinks he smarter than everyone else or not. Apparently, you think you are smarter than everyone else too since you seem to know what’s better for others economic interests. But, regardless, I was talking about why he said the law was written the way it was. And, I quote. “what’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.” How is that any different from what you said? “Maybe, just maybe, when people that make under 40k/yr realize that they’ll be paying more because their right-wing governor…” So, they used low income people as pawns to try and make Republican governors look bad. And, it didn’t turn out quite they way they hoped. Much like everything else in the law.

        5. I find it curious that someone ill-informed enough to be a socialist would be calling other people stupid. As for Gruber, he has certainly demonstrated his intelligence, NIT notwithstanding. You can get pretty far in academia if forced to by the fact you have no real marketable skills other than feral cunning.

          1. MIT. OK, so Gruber can probably type faster than me. Whoopee.

          2. Of course he calls other people stupid. It’s the only way socialists can defend their ideology…because they certainly can’t defend it on outcomes and prosperity.

            He’s so wrapped up in showing everyone how edgy and clever he is for supporting an avant garde philosophy like socialism, that he never bothered to ask if what he’s supporting is just a stupid idea. He just knows that it makes him feel good about himself. That’s why he’s a stupid piece of shit.

            1. That’s why he’s a stupid piece of shit.

              So why are you a foulmouth bully?
              Pretend to be an adult. There are non-libertarians reading here.

              1. Because I’ve been dealing with him much longer than you have.

                Pretend to be an adult.

                Thanks, Miss Manners…clearly all I needed was your correction, because the approval of persons like yourself is what libertarians truly crave.

                So why are you a foulmouth bully?

                There’s a spambot who posts here constantly. Go whine to it…he’ll care more than I will about your opinions of my opinions.

                There are non-libertarians reading here.

                And nobody here cares about indulging your preferences. Welcome to the big boy rules of the real world.

                1. Because I’ve been dealing with him much longer than you have.

                  That entitles you to be a bully and a thug?

                  HIHN: So why are you a foulmouth bully?

                  No answer from the thug.

                  1. No, I just had other things to do besides sit here and reminisce about your youthful forays into politics where the voters ignored your quest for a third-tier political office.

                    Incidentally, people who whine about “thugs” on the Internet, when the only thing being exchanged are words, aren’t victims of anything but themselves.

                    1. Incidentally, people who whine about “thugs” on the Internet, when the only thing being exchanged are words, aren’t victims of anything but themselves.

                      So you also have an entitlement mentality? (laugh)

                    2. No, just no pity for whining…or for those who don’t seem to understand the definition of “entitlement mentality”.

                      If people like you are running the show, no wonder the Washington LP is non-existent.

                    3. No, just no pity for whining…or for those who don’t seem to understand the definition of “entitlement mentality”.

                      You said you’re entitled to be an asshole.

                      Now tell us, in your infinite wisdom, why bullying cannot be done with words alone. (laughing)

                    4. Haha…bullying. 🙂

                      If you feel bullied by someone you don’t know typing words on a keyboard, you really are a loser with an empty life.

                      You should probably rectify that by not getting into flame wars with people who aren’t impressed by your bio. That’ll just make you feel worse about yourself, and you don’t have much cushion there.

                    5. UCraford brags about bullying ? even that he gangs up on commenters!

                      Idiots like American Socialist who has been told by almost the entire commentariat here in no uncertain terms that he’s a piece of shit (and yet he keeps coming back).

                      Halellujah! A commentariat of enforcers, shouting down and driving out any non-conformists to their Groupthink!

                      Dumber than a guy who brags about being a socialist on a libertarian website.

                      Mark your ballots. Who is the biggest disgrace on a libertarian website:

                      Brags about being a socialist?

                      Brags about repeated aggression, both alone and in a gang ? is too stupid to know libertarians can be socialists ? and that Ayn Rand defended hippie communes (gasp) ? apparently believes Israeli kibbutzim and hippie communes are populated by goose-stepping storm troopers ? and that the Oneida and Shaker communes maintained gulags ?. mindlessly believes all socialism is state socialism ?. all while drooling on its keyboard?

                      Vote totals announced tomorrow

                      (Rand said the hippies’ only error was assuming they had to become farmers to live in a commune)

                      (Hihn’s body becomes wracked by violent vomiting)

                    6. I asked: Now tell us, in your infinite wisdom, why bullying cannot be done with words alone.

                      non-response:

                      If you feel bullied by someone you don’t know typing words on a keyboard, you really are a loser with an empty life.

                      Did dumbfuck just say one can only be bullied by somebody they know?

                      Do libertatians know the difference between aggressors and victims?

                      (snicker) How long can I keep baiting this dumbass?

                2. Hihn: So why are you a foulmouth bully?

                  Because I’ve been dealing with him much longer than you have.

                  (laughing) How long must I deal with him so I can be an asshole like you? Months? Years?

                  1. Not sure. Stick around and maybe you’ll grow into it…assuming that you don’t continue to make comments with even less value than his like you have for the last two days. In that case, the commentariat will happily apprise you of your shortcomings.

                    1. In that case, the commentariat will happily apprise you of your shortcomings.

                      Groupthink! Libertarian Commentariat Uber Alles!

                    2. At this point it’s become apparent that you’re really just craving my attention, and don’t particularly care whether it’s good or bad attention.

                      I recommend that you find a hobby. Preferably one in which you can indulge while under a pharmaceutical regime prescribed by a reputable physician or psychiatrist. I hear fingerpainting works good with the Thorazine crowd…just remember that the paint is meant to go on the canvas, not inside your tum-tum.

                    3. At this point it’s become apparent that you’re really just craving my attention, and don’t particularly care whether it’s good or bad attention.

                      I don’t care if you live or die, you arrogant asshole.

                      My sole intention is to show how and why the greatest threats to libertarianism is … libertarians … libertarians like you.

                      So I keep baiting you, and you keep proving it to everyone. You really are that stupid. Keep it coming!

                    4. “I don’t care if you live or die, you arrogant asshole.” – Village Idiot & Town Liar, Michael John Hihn

                      Your male nurse not give you a sponge bath today?

        6. amsoc – please explain why it is acceptable for the state to use force against peaceful people to take some of the wealth that they earned?

          1. amsoc – please explain why it is acceptable for the state to use force against peaceful people to take some of the wealth that they earned?

            Umm, he’s toying with you, making a fool of you, and you keep getting suckered into it.

            You’re asking him to explain something he hasn’t supported — because you’re a chest-thumping, belligerant blowhard.

            What he’s doing is asking you to defend liberty …. and probably laughing when you repeatedly fail to.
            Perhaps even laughing as hard at you as I am.

            He may perhaps be sadistic and cruel by taunting you, like kicking a helpless cripple.

            1. Mike – he does support it. As a matter of fact, his current lifestyle needs it to be maintained. Myself and occasionally a few others question him about it. It really os two fold. One, if I get an attempt at a logical and legitimate response from him it would be wonderful (the content, not the act). And second, he strawman’s with drivel more than anyone else here like him (Tony, Lyle, PB, Tulpa, craig,etc) and asking the question tends to result in fewer posts.

              After reading your post to me and the plethora of ALL CAPS RAGE above. I come to the conclusion tht you have received some rather bad news. Have you been diagnosed with cancer recently?

              1. And second, he strawman’s with drivel more than anyone else here like him

                Since you’re a proven liar, you have zero credibility:

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

                Have you been diagnosed with cancer recently?

                back to you earlier question, THAT is why you an UCrawford are aggression thugs, like a very small street gang.

                You seem to enjoy being my stalker.

                1. You seem to (1) resist the fact that I am NOT A CHRISTIAN.

                  “you an UCrawford are aggression thugs, like a very small street gang.”
                  This truly is rich coming from all bold rage.

                  1. You seem to (1) resist the fact that I am NOT A CHRISTIAN

                    I resist EVER mentioning it, sport, . Except when I documented you lying about the word..

                    This truly is rich coming from all bold rage.

                    Sorry. I;m a libertarian, so I sometimes assume that everyone understands the difference between aggression and self defense. And you get vicious after being documented as a liar here:
                    https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

                    You confuse rage with ridicule … Pot kettle black (snicker)

                2. What denomination am I?

        7. amsoc economic interests = the state using armed agents to force productive people to pay for less productive people?

          1. dumbfuck — mindlessly assumnes all socialists are state socialists … believes the Israeli kibbutz and hippie communes are populated with goose-stepping storm troopers … the Oneida and Shaker communes maintained gulags … is too fucking stupid to know that voluntary communes were defended by Ayn Rand …. cannot see his own raging bigotry …. a belligerant blowhard.

            Tribal libertarianism, knee-jerk wing.

            1. Does it bother you that Christians that visit the site pray for you?

              Anyhow, amsoc is for wealth redistribution and apears to support the current system of backing it by force.

              Oh, I’m interested in seeing your citations to base ypur comments since my interaction with him is based on hundreds of posts and not “gee willickers, y’all got socialism in yet name”.

              I don’t think you’ve been both this belligerent and incorrent in combination since you spent and emtire thread attacking me as a proxy for Christianity even after I told you multiple times that I am not Christian. Tribal knee-jerk indeed!

              1. Does it bother you that Christians that visit the site pray for you?

                Of course not. MY atheism is libertarian, thus tolerant …compared to the statism of theocrats (a minority of Christian conervatives) .. and Ron Paul, ridicules Separation, panders to the theocrats, lies about the founders and constitution, all as a social statist and blatant bigot. Even sucks up to Alex Jones!

                emtire thread attacking me as a proxy for Christianity even after I told you multiple times that I am not Christian

                An about-to-be-documneted Liar.
                1) Attacking you as a proxy for Christianityl
                2) You telling me several times you’re not a Christian.

                The word (or root) “christian appears 3 times on this page, all of them in this comment. So a simple page search outs you in five seconds.

                You’re way our of your league, sonny.

                1. “You’re way our of your league, sonny.”

                  Perhaps. My league exists in reality.

                  1. In your reality, the immediately preceding message proves you lied.
                    Keep going!

                    Your lie: “the enmtire thread attacking me as a proxy for Christianity even after I told you multiple times that I am not Christian

                    A page search showsd the word and root “Christian” appears only 3 times on the entire page … all in the message when you lie about it appearing several tomes elsewhere. Keep shwing us who you are

                    1. Your logic: I post the word “Christian” three times in a post and that makes me a Christian? I have used the word “socialist” three times in one post. Am I also a socialist?

            2. Does it bother you that Christians that visit the site pray for you?

              We all understand WHY you’re so desperate to change the subject!

              1. 20% of that post spent on that (by number of sentences). Hardy a Red Herring…

    6. american socialist|3.2.15 @ 10:52AM|#

      So, people in states run by reactionaries will have to pay more for health insurance because they won’t get federal subsidies? I a. live in California and b. have a job so this means that I’ll get a subsidy if I ever lose my job and I didn’t notice anything different when obamacare raised its ugly totalitarian head. Thus, I’m left shrugging my shoulders a little over this.

      California! Now there’s a good example of a state run by reactionaries. After all, the idea of stealing from some for the benefit of others has been around forever. Certainly nothing new or progressive about the practice except possibly in name only.

      1. Thus, I’m left shrugging my shoulders a little over this.

        Now a memorized soundbite from a mentally deficient puppet.

        California! Now there’s a good example of a state run by reactionaries. After all, the idea of stealing from some for the benefit of others has been around forever. Certainly nothing new or progressive about the practice except possibly in name only.

        Ummm, the question was how the vast majority of Americans, who have employer-paid healthcare, can be enraged (and drooling like sasob) by a healthcare law which has absolutely no effect on them?

        Sasob has no fucking clue, so he spews a memorized slogan.

        Also legitimate: why do low-income Americans, in Republican states, have to pay MORE for their health insurance?

        Screeching about socialism is philosophically correct … but is also preaching to the choir … confirms the accusation, by some, that you don’t give a shit the less fortunate who struggle from day to day … and are just a greedy, arrogant asshole.

        I don’t gree with that (except the arogant asshole part) I’m saying your bellowing provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

        That’s why the libertraian brand is rejected by 91% of … LIBERTARIANS.

        The greatest threat to libertarianism is not socialism. It is libertarians .. the dumbass ones. We’d all have a better shot at liberty if they’d sit down and shut up.

        IOW, SASOB is the enemy of liberty. First, we must defeat THEM.

        1. Village Idiot, since you are a bad apple libertarian we may all be better off after you transition from the December of your life, where you are now, reaches New Year’s.

    7. So, people in states run by reactionaries will have to pay more for health insurance because they won’t get federal subsidies

      No, Republicans announced last night that anyone who now receives a subsidy will continue getting it during a “transition period” yet to be defined.

      I a. live in California and b. have a job so this means that I’ll get a subsidy if I ever lose my job and I didn’t notice anything different when obamacare raised its ugly totalitarian head.

      Several egregious errors. First, you would not have recieved a subsidy per se, pre-Obamacare. Depending on your overall situation, you might have qualified for Medicaid which means you’d get free insurance without the expense and bureaucracy of the fucking stupid exchanges.

      Do you realize that Obamacare reimburses state Medicare increases for NEWLY eligible only? States oay the ENTIRE increase for all the original eligibles who enroll now that the enrollment is fraudulent.

      1. oops typo. “reimburses state MediCAID increases..”

  13. Roberts will ignore the plain language of the constitution as he did before. The supreme court capitulated to FDR, and they will never again do their job.

    -jcr

  14. You make 27 Dollar per hour good for you! I make up to 85 Dollar per hour working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around 45 Dollar per hour to 85 Dollar per hour heres a good example of what I’m doing more detail here….
    —————- http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Dorothy, why don’t you go to MSNBC and post your commercials there?

  15. You make $27 per hour good for you! I make up to $85 per hour working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around 45 Dollar per hour to 85 Dollar per hour heres a good example of what I’m doing more detail here….
    —————- http://www.jobsfish.com

  16. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

  17. It may turn out that it isn’t even up to Roberts. One or more of the other conservative justices might very well join with the liberals on the court in taking the government’s side, sparing John Roberts any embarrassment.

  18. Roberts will ignore the plain language of the constitution as he did before. The supreme court capitulated to FDR, and they will never again do their job.
    kizi
    friv

    1. Maybe you haven’t noticed that the language of the Constitution isn’t at issue here, but the language of the statute.

  19. I predict Roberts goes the other way on this ruling because a) he can do so without overriding his precedent on the case, and b) it’s not an election year and Obama’s no longer the golden boy. People seem to forget that when the Obamacare ruling came out, how livid Scalia was at Roberts…because he changed his position at the last second. Hell, the dissent issued actually referred to itself at one point as the majority opinion, because the change happened so recently.

    Roberts’ move was a straight political gambit, because he knew if the Supreme Court shot down Obamacare in 2012, Obama would just play the martyr and use the ruling to find a way to destroy the legitimacy of the courts. As Chief Justice, Roberts has a responsibility to protect the political status of the Court as well as issue rulings…now that Obama’s a lame duck and Congress is in GOP hands, the situation has changed. So, I suspect, will his vote on Obamacare.

    1. I have a hunch that regardless of how all this turns out – whether the law is seriously crippled or not – that the individual personal mandate in some form is here to stay. Even if the GOP manages to completely repeal Obamacare and institute some other plan of their own, I think it wiil involve a mandate. Government seldom if ever restores a right or a liberty it has taken. Unfortunately.

      1. Of course the mandate is here to stay, absent legislative repeal. Obamacare is a tax law and it’s been written into the law. However, that also means that the benefits promised under Obamacare (since it’s a tax) aren’t guaranteed and can (and will) be scaled back without recourse by recipients.

        Just wait…in a couple of years, nobody is going to think this is a good deal except the pieces of shit who get a totally free ride on it.

      2. that the individual personal mandate in some form is here to stay

        The partial alternative released yesterday (Burr-Hatch-Upton) would have no mandates, but penalties for people who enroll after they get sick. People with continuous coverage, even with pre-existing conditions, would still continue that coverage, even when changing jobs, per the law passed in 1996.

        1. Mike – an existing condition is a pre-existing condition.

          1. Chumby, the term refers to someone who is changing carriers. If you have snot up your ass, that’s an existing condition. If you’re changing carriers and/or jobs it’s a pre-existing condition.

            The “pre” means before you had coverage. “Existing” makes no such distinction.

            Clear enough for ya?

            Have you spent maybe an hour reading about how health insurance works, and what “pre-existing” means?

            Oh yeah, you can’t be denied coverage you already have (for an existing condition)

            1. Department of redundancy department

              1. Excuse for being exposed as an illiterate dumbfuck

            2. And pro-tip: try decaf. :-). Oh yeah, Ron Paul prays for you.

              1. Ron Paul prays for a guy who keeps expasing him as a statist bigot?

                Mike – an existing condition is a pre-existing condition.

                Ummm, the term distinguished someone who is changing carriers. If you have snot up your ass, that’s an existing condition. If you’re changing carriers and/or jobs it’s a pre-existing condition.

                The “pre” means before you had coverage. “Existing” makes no such distinction.

                Clear enough for ya?

                (Obviously no, but I ca

                Have you spent maybe an hour reading about how health insurance works, and what “pre-existing” means?

                Oh yeah, you can’t be denied coverage you already have (for an existing condition)

                1. (obviously not clear enough for Chumby, but I can’t dumb it down any further)

                  For scorekeepers. The Groupthink Commentariat thugs are now up to Chumbly and UCrawford. Keep your eyes peeled for more aggressors on a libertarian website.

                  1. Appeal to authority
                    Ad Hominem
                    Ignoring the Counterevidence
                    Domino Theory
                    Drawing the Wrong Conclusion
                    Equivocation
                    Faulty Analogy
                    Resort to Ridicule
                    Omission of Key Evidence
                    Wishful Thinking

                    1. But you’re a documented liar!

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

                      And … uhhhh …. screaming those accusations is, by definition … wait for it …. ad hominem!

                      Did you see me put a link there. You”re a PROVEN liar … seeking revenge through mere ad hominems, thus more evidence of you being a thug and a bully.

                      Keep going with your bullying tactics ….

                    2. I’m pointing out your literary fallacies. That isn’t ad hominem.

                      Regarding you wishful thinking, ignoring the counter-evidence, omission of key evidence claim that I am Christian, please include the citation where I represent myself as such. If you cite the post where I originally pointed out that you raged on me for being Christian when in fact I am not as evidence because it includes the word “Christian” then you’re going to get the same responses from me.

                    3. I’m pointing out your literary fallacies. That isn’t ad hominem.

                      One more time — unless and until you can document your lies, they are personal attacks (lol)

                      If you cite the post where I originally pointed out that you raged on me for being Christian

                      Twice, you pathetic piece oif rotting shit. On this very page

                      You seem to (1) resist the fact that I am NOT A CHRISTIAN.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129619

                      And this is when I FIRST called you out as a psychotic liar.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

                      Your words (vomit)
                      I don’t think you’ve been both this belligerent and incorrent in combination since you spent and emtire thread attacking me as a proxy for Christianity even after I told you multiple times that I am not Christian

                      One more time for the morally challenged Anyone may do a word search on this page for “Christian.” It ONLY appears in the message containiing the attack you now deny So you were never atatcked as a Christian, nor did you ever deny it ONCE. So STILL a proven liar.

                      I’ve also now provided the proof that the libertarian brand is now rejected by 91% of libertarians — mostly from assholes like you. (2006 Cato survey)

                      Since THIS denial establishes you as bat-shit crazy, my work here is done!

                    4. I have come to the conclusion that you cannot accept that you completely fucked up when you originally attacked me as being Christian. After having been notified several times of this and having no evidence of me being a Christian (sorry, using a word doesn’t actually make the word apply to the user), you continue to ignore this. I am open to being wrong about this but I picture you as a bitter, geriatric old man whose high water mark in life is coming in third place in an election of three candidates for a mid-tier government position and this has left you angry.

    2. But who knows what dirt the NSA has gathered on him.

  20. I have no idea how could this “judicial deference” doctrine have originated among conservatives, who otherwise preach deference to the Constitution.
    The very language of the very first Amendment that constitutes the Bill of Rights reads: “The Congress shall make no law…” It is a direct, explicit abridgement of the “rule of the majority” in favor of certain fundamental principles, and the judiciary is the proper authority to defend the Constitution. Shame on Roberts in particular, and on all those who subscribe to the doctrine of judicial deference.

    1. Judicial deference is actually the principal that the court should just interpret the law, not make it (See Roe v. Wade, contra). It does not require deference to clearly unconstitutional laws like Obamacare, but the court should construe laws to read in a way as to make them constitutional if wording allowing that is present. What Roberts did is not deference, however, but flaccidity.

      1. Judicial deference is actually the principal that the court should just interpret the law, not make it (See Roe v. Wade, contra).

        Ever hear of the Ninth Amendment????
        On what authrority do you reject the entire principle of equal and unalienable rights — in this case for pregnant women? Do you know what unalienable means?

        And Roe v Wade was “overruled” (replaced) way back in 1992.

    2. I have no idea how could this “judicial deference” doctrine have originated among conservatives, who otherwise preach deference to the Constitution.

      It’s an (optional) component of the contempt for “activist judges.”

      Much like Ron Paul claims part of DOMA was struck down by “rogue judges” — in this case because Ron somehow never read the Ninth Amendment. Nor has Rand.

      1. Aaack, I didn’t properly “close quote” Everything after the first paragrpah are my own words, not Greg’s

  21. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $68 /hr on the computer . She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $20011 just working on the computer for a few hours.

    pop over to this site http://www.post-report.com

  22. It’s clearer than the article would have you think.

    The subsidies are only granted for only one specific section of the law; the one providing for States to set up their own exchanges. A separate provision allows the federal government to establish an exchange for States which do not set up their own, and this second section is omitted from the subsidy provision.

    It was no oversight; the Democrats wanted to coerce the States into setting up exchanges by penalizing voters in the States which didn’t, thereby harming Republicans who opposed the law merely because it was clearly unconstitutional. This was openly stated by the drafters at the time, though now they now have amnesia.

    The Democrats miscalculated the resolve of the States, and their extortion attempt backfired resulting in the law being even more unsustainable.

    To fix the law (overlooking its overall unconstitutionality) is should be amended by Congress. However, Democrats can’t allow that because the law would be repealed if it ever came up for another vote.

    So the subsidy must be upheld because otherwise Democrat chicanery in manufacturing dependent voters would be reversed. Or, in the words of Reverend “God Damn America” Wright, their chickens would have come home to roost.

    1. the law would be repealed if it ever came up for another vote.

      Sorry, Presidential veto.
      Republicans need to stop dicking around and devise then sell a credible alternative.

      So far, they’ve guaranteed that if the federal exchange is overturned then the subsidies will simply be replaced so that nobody loses or pays more for their healthcare. That will satisfy the screeching about throwing the poor off a cliff, but they call it a “transition period” with still no alternative.

    2. The Democrats miscalculated the resolve of the States,

      AFTER the Supreme Court empowered the states to decline.

    3. A separate provision allows the federal government to establish an exchange for States which do not set up their own, and this second section is omitted from the subsidy provision.

      Why would it have to be in the subsidy provision? That sounds like the Birther-type hysteria about Congress and staff getting a “special exemption” in the Exchanges. In that case, federal law had established and defined the employer contribution for federal employees — and it was never repealed.

      The National Center for Policy Analysis is the premier think tank for healthcare. This link will walk you through the facts.

      http://healthblog.ncpa.org/sho…..exchanges/

  23. I predict he’ll rule on a standing issue, which has the dual benefit to him of allowing him to punt on the statutory interpretation issue as well as further narrowing the ability of individuals to challenge government actions.

  24. What would Brian Boitano do?

  25. Mabe Ginsburg gets drunk and votes the right way this time.

  26. What was at issue in the previous decision was unequal treatment allowed by the income tax, not Roberts’ interpretation of the taxing powers of the govt, which was as wrong as it was during the Civil War, and no matter what he said about the law as policy.

  27. What was at issue in the previous decision was unequal treatment allowed by the income tax,

    (laughing) How so?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.