Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

This really is a full service blog.

“A king is only a king if we bow down.” – Rev. William Barber

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Tick tock motherfuckers!

The “burn-it-down” people are good with that until they become part of the kindling.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

Stay strong, because they are weak.

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

We will not go back.

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

In my day, never was longer.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

They spent the last eight months firing professionals and replacing them with ideologues.

Sometimes the world just tells you your cat is here.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Quick thoughts on King

Quick thoughts on King

by | 197 Comments

This post is in: ,

Just some quick thoughts on the Supreme Court 6-3 decision affirming the government’s position.

  • 6-3 decision is what I thought the best case scenario would have been
  • Unified majority
  • I was expecting a split majority, 4 liberals go WTF, and Roberts/Kennedy going for the NFIB Federal non-coercion logic and finding.  I got that wrong
  • Big government win — subsidies availability is inherent to the law.  This means President Cruz can’t order his IRS to rework the rule allowing subsidies to go to Healthcare.gov states on January 21, 2017.

This is a bigger win that I thought possible, basically the ACA is entrenched and besides nibbling on the edges like Hobby Lobby, the only threat to the law is a Republican trifecta.  So time to expand the Senate majority in 2016 to build a blocking coalition through 2022.

We have held that Congress “does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms orancillary provisions.” Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 468 (2001). But in petitioners’view, Congress made the viability of the entire AffordableCare Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub-sub-sub section of the Tax Code. We doubt that is what Congress meant to do. Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so inthe definition of “applicable taxpayer” or in some other prominent manner. It would not have used such a winding path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amountof the credit.5

Reader Interactions

197Comments

  2. 2.

    Keith G

    I hate doing this but I just posted this comment on the previous thread about the court decision. I would like to be read so I’m bringing it over here. Please excuse the duplicate post.

    Now that Obamacare has what seems to be an extended shelf life, we can turn our attention to the next health care battle. Life-saving pharmaceuticals are still priced too god damn high for Americans. This needs to stop. While I can afford the Obama care premiums every month, what I can not afford are the $1000 per prescription (x3 drugs) cost of my monthly stay alive drug supply.

    Luckily I have AIDS.

    Let that sink in for a bit.

    There are several layers of community help available to me through nonprofits. Each of them chip in a bit to help defray the cost of prescriptions. Once a year I get to go through the process of hoping each of them has met their funding goals and in some cases receive the federal grants that help them to continue.

    But, I have friends whose life threatening, chronic illnesses did not achieve the celebrity notoriety that AIDS has. Quite frankly as often as not they are left to their own devices, facing prescription costs at least as high as mine and in some cases higher.

    We won big today and we dare not forget those who still need us to fight harder in the future.

  3. 3.

    Villago Delenda Est

    Well, this is depressing.

    We’ll never find out what Yertle’s secret plan was.

    Drat.

  6. 6.

    dmsilev

    I can’t wait for each and every one of the GOP Presidential Clown Car Occupants to go on record saying “I will work with Congress to eliminate those subsidies.”. Should go over well.

  7. 7.

    JGabriel

    Richard Mayhew @ Top:

    6-3 decision is what I thought the best case scenario would have been … I was expecting a split majority, 4 liberals go WTF, and Roberts/Kennedy going for the NFIB Federal non-coercion logic and finding. I got that wrong …

    Yep. I was expecting the ACA to be upheld – I didn’t think Roberts would vote against businesses this time when he voted to uphold the ACA on their behalf* last time – but I was pretty sure Kennedy wouldn’t be on that majority. I hoped he would be, but really didn’t expect it. Glad I was wrong.

    (*That’s my speculation as to Roberts’ motive in upholding the ACA, because … Roberts’ caring about people? Yeah, right, sell me another.)

  9. 9.

    Keith

    Scalia says reasoning in opinions is pure “applesauce” – which makes me wonder, does he then view reasoning in his dissents is pure awesomesauce?

  11. 11.

    Omnes Omnibus

    Yes, I think that this decision was the best result possible, in terms of decision and vote, from this Court.

  14. 14.

    Davis X. Machina

    @lol: Exactly.

    This is terrible! This institutionalizes the ACA! How will we ever get to single payer now? Kill the Bill!

  15. 15.

    Snarki, child of Loki

    …and Chief Justice John “lawless” Roberts reveals himself, once more, to be a RINO.

    I’m not sure why the Republicans are putting up with him, they have the votes in the House for impeachment, have they no courage of their beliefs?

    IMPEACH ROBERTS NOW!

    Why, they’d probably even pick up a few D votes, also, too.

  16. 16.

    Karen in GA

    I said years ago that before we could have universal health coverage, we need to burn down the Republican Party and salt the earth so it can never grow again, because otherwise they’d do everything in their power to take universal coverage away again. Hell, they’re still going after Social Security — they’ll never quit with the ACA. But today is a nice reprieve.

  20. 20.

    cahuenga

    @Snarki, child of Loki:

    I heard it suggested this morning that Roberts might have flipped merely to control writing the majority opinion, possibly fearing what the others might write.

    A definite possibility.

  21. 21.

    JPL

    @Keith: This is Scalia’s applesauce argument

    .

    Pure applesauce. Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to
    take the “interests of graduate students” into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach
    only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has
    “graduate students,” so that “graduate students” must really mean “graduate or undergraduate students”? Surely not. Just as one naturally reads instructions about graduate students to be inapplicable to the extent a particular professor has no such students, so too would one naturally read instructions about qualified individuals to be inapplicable to the extent a particular Exchange has no such individuals.

    He doesn’t even pretend to be serious anymore

  22. 22.

    dmsilev

    @JPL: I don’t think I’ve ever before read a SCOTUS opinion that utilizes a variant of the Chewbacca Defense.

  23. 23.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @cahuenga: This opinion is about as strong as it could be. What do you suggest that Ginsberg (for example) authored opinion might have said that this one didn’t? Note that there were no concurrences.

  24. 24.

    bluehill

    On to the next waste of taxpayer dollars in the name of generating talking points to stir up the republican base.

  25. 25.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @dmsilev: Nino is supposed to be so “brilliant”, too.

    Do you suppose he coached Rafael when Rafael read “Green Eggs and Ham” and totally missed the point of the book?

  27. 27.

    cthulhu

    As the ACA continues to, slowly unfortunately, but successfully shape healthcare in the US, it is a bit of delicious comeuppance that the GOP worked so hard to label it “Obamacare” Seems like the name has stuck and thus an example of good things which still can be done by government will likely be credited to the Dems for decades to come. Its hardly perfect but I think a lot of the quality metrics stuff in the bill will become a very notable deal moving forward. And now smaller, perhaps possible improvements can be put through (e.g., drug cost control, as noted above).

  28. 28.

    Chyron HR

    John Thune deserves some credit for leading the charge to stop Obamacare from taking away our precious subsidies.

  31. 31.

    different-church-lady

    Myself, I am relieved that things will continue to be all screwed up in the fashion that I have become accustomed, rather than all screwed up in an entirely new way.

  32. 32.

    the Conster

    @Frank Wilhoit:

    They’ll claim it as their invention, and just wanted to make sure it was stress tested. They’ll be guaranteed 47% of the voting population to believe it.

  33. 33.

    Cacti

    This was actually the result I had predicted from the beginning.

    And while the GOP will publicly condemn the decision, privately they’re all breathing huge sigh of relief that Roberts and Kennedy pulled their fat out of the fire re: subsidies and the red states.

  34. 34.

    Betty Cracker

    PBO making a statement now, Joe Biden by his side. Said healthcare isn’t for a privileged few but a right for all. Cites 50+ congressional votes to overturn it, SCOTUS challenges, etc., but law “is here to stay.” Sounds feisty. He and Joe should make a buddy movie when this is all over.

  36. 36.

    shell

    What I love is all the sweet, sweet bitter grapes/gripes from the official statements of the Repubs, Boehner, Cruz, Rubio, etc. Still trying to convince us that the law ‘is deeply flawed’ and a ‘disaster’ for all Americans and how they will keep working to repeal and replace (four years on and still no plan, boys?) because freedom, blah…blah..blah. When you look at their faces you can tell even they don’t believe their own hooey any more.

  37. 37.

    Corner Stone

    @JPL:

    He doesn’t even pretend to be serious anymore

    If he ever pretended, he has long since given up the pretense of attempting to be serious. His ridiculous partisan-steeped furious outbursts have all the hallmarks of dementia.

  38. 38.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @cahuenga: Legacy may be a factor. Damage control was not. This opinion was as much pure win for the good guys as it could have been.

  40. 40.

    Bill Arnold

    @JGabriel:

    Roberts’ motive in upholding the ACA

    I prefer to believe that he has a strong distaste for ridiculous arguments, as all justices should.

  41. 41.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @shell: They have a plan. It’s secret though. If you know what’s in it, it will be spoiled, and the Ottoman Empire will finally have an advantage over us. This shall not pass!

  42. 42.

    Fred

    @JPL: Sounds like Fat Tony’s brain is apple sauce. It’s kinda like comparing apple sauce to orange marmalade.

  43. 43.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Betty Cracker: Sweet, sweet wingnut tears. My Schadenfreude meter is going to need to go back into the shop again from pegging repeatedly.

  45. 45.

    West of the Cascades

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’d guess that Ginsburg’s first instinct would have been to affirm on Chevron grounds. I’m delighted that Roberts went beyond that, because it gives admin law attorneys (like me) ammunition to argue that Congress hasn’t intended delegating interpretive authority to agencies, and thus that a court is free to interpret the ambiguities in a statute to arrive at a meaning consistent with the statute’s overall purpose. It won’t help a lot, given that in this case it turns on the IRS not being an agency expert in health policy, but it’s some interesting food for thought in challenging agencies’ regulations and decisions interpreting statutes.

  46. 46.

    Keith

    @JPL: An argument that reads as if culled from a poorly framed IQ / logic test: If some Smaugs are Thors and some Thors are Thrains, then some Smaugs are definitely Thrains –
    Answer:
    A – True
    B – False
    C – This means the end of the ACA!

  50. 50.

    Betty Cracker

    Now he’s addressing Medicaid expansion in hold-out states, citing “political reasons” for withholding healthcare. He’s talking to you, Rick Scott!

  52. 52.

    Corner Stone

    @Betty Cracker:

    He and Joe should make a buddy movie when this is all over.

    Cut to scene:
    Firebird skids to a stop in a dusty parking area of a gas station somewhere along Route 66. Silhouette in dust and shadow of a lean man standing up and slowly looking around. Shot of man walking towards door of gas station, from shoulders down to cowboy boots. Man pulls crumpled wad of bills out of pocket and slaps down on counter.
    Man’s voice: Gimme a pack of Kools.
    Cashiers voice: *startled gasp*
    Slow pullback and reveal of man’s face with cigarette dangling from his lips.
    Obama: What? Yeah, I smoke. You gotta a problem with that?
    Blaring vocals from rock band as Obama gets back in the Firebird and shot of Smiling Uncle Joe as he stomps the gas and they take off in a cloud of dust.

  53. 53.

    kc

    @Keith G:

    Damn, I am so sorry you are going through that.

    We won big today and we dare not forget those who still need us to fight harder in the future.

    Yes. The ACA is just half the battle. If that.

  54. 54.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @West of the Cascades: Interesting thought on Ginsberg. As I noted above, there were no concurrences. That could be because everyone agreed or that those who were Chevron inclined thought a clean majority opinion was more important.

  55. 55.

    Betty Cracker

    “This was a good day for America. Let’s get back to work.” Thus ends the statement.

    @Corner Stone: Cut to Jake Tapper, face contorted with rage. “Koooooooooolzzzzzz!”

  56. 56.

    Corner Stone

    @Betty Cracker:

    Name-checked “death panels.” Fuck you, Sarah!”

    I thought that was more pointed at the applesauce-for-brains Media that uncritically repeated that stupid tripe, over and over.

  57. 57.

    gratuitous

    Well, Republican majorities in Congress, you’ve got your framework, battle-tested and court-approved, for reform of our dysfunctional health care system. Are you willing to work within that system toward your goal (whatever that is)? Or will you continue to stamp your little feet and flail your tiny fists and screech “Repeal!” like a particularly spoiled four-year-old?

  58. 58.

    JPL

    Supposedly Scalia will still author an opinion on one of the remaining decisions. Will it be cruel and unusual punishment or Michigan vs EPA.
    Scotusblog thinks RGB will pen the Arizona redistricting opinion and Kennedy the same sex ruling.

    IMO, Scalia is foaming at the mouth to write a death penalty opinion.

  59. 59.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @Betty Cracker:

    He and Joe should make a buddy movie when this is all over.

    That is the best idea I’ve ever seen in my entire life.

    Make.It.Happen.

  60. 60.

    Penus

    @Keith: Far be it from me to compliment Fat Tony, but I do have to give him props for his use of “jiggery-pokery” in the dissent.

  62. 62.

    Kathleen

    @Corner Stone: I thought the same thing. I think he’s starting to troll the Villagers more and more (“N word” contremps over Maron interview, etc.) I suspect Chuck Todd has a sadz, but will blame Obama’s lack of leadership for the filing of the suit with the Supreme Court.

  64. 64.

    Elizabelle

    Fox-watching. They’ve seized on Scalia’s “words no longer have any meaning” whine.

    Now they’re whingeing about John Roberts using “novel arguments.”

    Fox takes heart in religious challenges to the ACA wending its way to the Supreme Court. Dream on, wingnuts. “After today, who knows how that’s going to end up?” — Napolitano. He’s bearish on their prospects.

    Fox complaining this is a “politicized court.”

    As they say, words have no meaning.

  68. 68.

    Elizabelle

    @Kathleen: We should round up the premature eulogies for Obamacare, and how the president does not have a legacy. Twas sickening.

  71. 71.

    Hoodie

    Definitely a win for the good guys, but probably helps the GOP too. They would have been fucked by a ruling that would have stripped subsidies in heavy use purple states like FL and NC, where the end of subsidies would likely fuel an enormous surge in Dem turnout and, perhaps, depress GOP turnout as some of their voters lose their subsidies. Now, the GOP can still campaign against Obamacare, and may be able to drive their base a bit harder because it’s now pretty clear that the SC probably is not going to do anything more to undermine the law before 2016. The Dems can’t sit back and rely on this ruling, they have to win at least the WH in 2016. The next strategy of the GOP will be to try to sabotage the ACA with a bunch of bogus “fixes” (Jeb! might take such a tack, with his version of compassionate conservatism consisting of getting red of Confederate flags and “fixing” the ACA by block granting, giving money to religious charities or some other nonsense). It would be nice to have a Dem Senate to beat those back.

  73. 73.

    burnspbesq

    I have this lingering fear that Scalia is going to take out his hissy-fit on the women of Texas. He’s the Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit, and somewhere on his desk is the emergency application for a stay of the Fifth Circuit’s odious and clearly wrong decision in the Texas abortion rights case. If there is no stay, all but six (IIRC) abortion providers in Texas will have to close on July 1.

    Fuck you, Nino. Do the right thing for once in your miserable tenure.

  75. 75.

    burnspbesq

    @MomSense:

    I’m in moderation for quoting Scalia

    As well you should be. This is a family blog. There’s no room for that kind of obscenity here.

  76. 76.

    burnspbesq

    Oddly, about the only blog I’ve visited this morning that has nothing to say about the King decision is FDL.

    Hmmm …

  77. 77.

    Cervantes

    @Keith G:

    We won big today and we dare not forget those who still need us to fight harder in the future.

    May seem trite but it’s the furthest thing from that.

    Thanks.

  78. 78.

    Roger Moore

    @Karen in GA:

    Hell, they’re still going after Social Security — they’ll never quit with the ACA.

    Maybe so, but with the established programs like Social Security and Medicare, they know they’re too popular to attack directly, so they resort to undermining the programs before they can attack them directly. Obamacare is almost to that point now, and with a win in 2016, we can keep it going for long enough that the Republicans will have to adopt the same strategy there. It’s a lot easier to play defense when your opponent is restricted to indirect attacks.

  79. 79.

    cahuenga

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Damage control may not have been a factor but that can of worms is rarely predictable. Roberts may have decided to protect himself on both fronts.

  80. 80.

    Cervantes

    @cahuenga:

    I heard it suggested this morning that Roberts might have flipped merely to control writing the majority opinion, possibly fearing what the others might write.

    Whose suggestion? I see no merit in it.

  81. 81.

    Cervantes

    @JPL:

    This is Scalia’s applesauce

    … in which he takes a life-and-death matter and, literally, turns it into an academic exercise.

  83. 83.

    Frankensteinbeck

    For those saying Scalia is stupid or senile, I disagree. I read his dissent. He’s a narcissist, immature, dishonest, tantruming baby, but some of his sophistries are really clever. I admire his conflating subject and object of a sentence on page 34 about ‘such regulations’, and then pretending he’s proved his point when his argument points in the opposite direction. It is extremely slick, and you really have to look closely to pick it apart. He’s also fantastic at quoting the one legal precedent he likes, and pretending that all the legal precedents that qualify it and make him wrong don’t exist.

    You have to be a genius to make such a wild misinterpretation of the law sound at all reasonable, and then he ruins it by dousing the whole thing in whiny toddler comments like saying the court just gives Obama whatever he wants.

  85. 85.

    chopper

    is it me or is “pure applesauce” sound like something scalia picked up from ned flanders?

  87. 87.

    srv

    Are the judges terrorists?

    Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had the sharpest words for the Supreme Court, calling the King v. Burwell decision “an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny.”

    “Our Founding Fathers didn’t create a ‘do-over’ provision in our Constitution that allows unelected Supreme Court justices the power to circumvent Congress and rewrite bad laws,” Huckabee said. “The Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench, ignore the Constitution and pass a multi-trillion dollar ‘fix’ to ObamaCare simply because Congress misread what the states would actually do.”

  88. 88.

    Elizabelle

    @Poopyman: Not going to the darkumb side. It’s just fun. CNN and MSNBC are kinda known quantities, although they do some stoopid both sides do it.

    (Dana Bash informing us, that nice Paul Ryan had “legislation written” to protect the 6+ million people who might lose their subsidies. How he planned to do that, we need never know now. But it was written down, people. So that’s a totally credible statement.)

  90. 90.

    Iowa Old Lady

    @Elizabelle: Having watched the long negotiations over the details of the ACA, it’s incredible that anyone, even Dana Bash, could believe Ryan has something typed up somewhere that’s all ready to go.

  91. 91.

    Germy Shoemangler

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    “The American people believe both subsidies and mandates are wrong, so it’s now up to Congress to use reconciliation to repeal Obamacare, and Congress should continue to do so until there is a president who is willing to sign that repeal,” harrumphed David McIntosh, a former Republican House member who is president of the free-market Club for Growth.

  94. 94.

    rk

    President Cruz can’t order his IRS to rework the rule allowing subsidies to go to Healthcare.gov states on January 21, 2017

    If we ever have a president Ted Cruz, the health care law will be the least of our worries.

  95. 95.

    Patricia Kayden

    “the only threat to the law is a Republican trifecta.”

    Thankfully, Republicans shouldn’t be back in the White House for a very long time and it’s very possible that Democrats will take over the Senate in 2016. It will be interesting to see what Republicans will do about the ACA now that it is settled law. Their battle seems futile. They should be thanking SCOTUS from taking this hot potato out of their laps.

  96. 96.

    MattF

    @Patricia Kayden: The House has already voted– what– 50 times to repeal the ACA. They’ll probably get right back to chasing that truck, since SCOTUS has made sure they’re not going to catch it any time soon.

  98. 98.

    Patricia Kayden

    @Elizabelle: When I clicked on Fox News briefly, one of their Blondes was asking what the Republican plan that could replace Obamacare actually looks like. I assume she knows damn well that there is no such plan.

  100. 100.

    Elizabelle

    @Keith G: Best to you, Keith.

    I think prescription drug prices and Big Pharma are on the radar screen. Particularly with Bernie Sanders in the race.

    We can agitate.

  102. 102.

    dmsilev

    @Patricia Kayden: at least in the short term, I expect the GOP to push through the eleven-millionth repeal vote. It’s basically a pacifier for Republican Congressmen, something to give them to suck on to temporarily stop the screaming.

    Longer term, they’ll probably try to nibble away the laws at the edges or poison-pill it, sort of like the various proposals to ‘fix’ Social Security.

  103. 103.

    Patricia Kayden

    @gratuitous: But the Republican goal is not to provide more Americans with access to affordable healthcare so whatever they do will not be helpful to the middle and working classes.

  104. 104.

    Elizabelle

    @Patricia Kayden: Fox is so dumb, I cannot believe its viewers cannot see through it. Sad, sad, sad.

    But then you have bleed-through, like Dana Bash assuring us on CNN that there was Paul Ryan legislation ready. Probably not. But way to polish his knob a bit.

  105. 105.

    Svensker

    NRO The Corner is particularly enjoyable right now. Won’t link, you have to find your own way there.

  107. 107.

    Patricia Kayden

    @MattF: They’ll keep chasing that truck until that truck backs up over them. When they lose the Presidency in 2016, that should be their hint that they’ve lost their war against the ACA. In fact, a President Hilary Clinton should work towards passing a single payer healthcare system, same as Canada.

  108. 108.

    JPL

    haha.. so word press doesn’t like j.ig..g.e.r.y…. p.o.k.e.r.y….

    must be the p part..

    I’m in moderation…

  109. 109.

    Germy Shoemangler

    @Patricia Kayden:

    In fact, a President Hilary Clinton should work towards passing a single payer healthcare system, same as Canada.

    Was that her original plan back in the ’90s? That everyone would get a Health card (similar to a social security card) and present it to doctors?

  110. 110.

    Elizabelle

    Andy Borowitz:

    Republicans Fear Victory for Health Care Could Pave Way for Education, Environment

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The Supreme Court’s decision to preserve Obamacare subsidies has drawn sharp rebukes from Republican Presidential hopefuls, who warn that the victory for health care might eventually pave the way for similar advances in education and the environment.

    @Keith G: Take heart, Keith G!

  111. 111.

    Mnemosyne (iPhone)

    @Keith G:

    Now probably is the best time to tackle it, because a lot of us with non-life threatening but chronic conditions have noticed the same thing. The cream I use for my rosacea (which is mildly disfiguring and sometimes painful, but by no means life-threatening) is now $1,000 for a 25gm tube that lasts about 3 months. And this is a very recent (within the past 3 years) development.

    I seriously doubt I’m the only person who’s noticed that prescription prices on ordinary stuff is out of control. Time to start taking these stories out in public.

  112. 112.

    JPL

    This is from the Washington Post… I’m not even going to comment….

    Atlanta resident Ted Souris, 62, describes himself as an “arch-conservative” who initially opposed the health law. He said he had mixed feelings about the ruling. He gets what he calls “a pretty hefty subsidy” to buy insurance — he gets $460 and pays $115 a month for insurance…………………………………………………..
    “I’m so against Obama, and I hate that he has any kind of victory,” said Souris, “but it’s nice that I don’t have to worry” about affording health coverage…………………………………………………………………………………..
    He said he doesn’t like getting what he calls “a government hand-out,” but that the law — and the subsidy — allowed him to retire early and still have coverage. “I am glad I have the Affordable Care Act, and I appreciate that I got the subsidy.” Without it, he’d probably have to go back to work, he said.

  114. 114.

    fuckwit

    Fantastic news! Wow, this is great.

    Hmm… conspiracy theory time: I wonder who exactly introduced that “error” into the bill. Maaaybeee… it was Yurtle? I am suddenly wondering if it wasn’t an innocent mistake, but a landmine inserted in committee somewhere by a Rethug hoping to sink the bill through a suit like this later on.

    Very, very glad that this worked out, a 6-3, one opinion.

    No wonder Roberts looked like he was passing a brick during the arguments. Indeed it would have been embarassing if the SCOTUS had ruled any other way than the way they did. Taking this case at all in the first place was probably a Scalia genius-move.

    This is settled. Now we just need to take back the Congress and the state legislatures. Because, biting our fingernails like this and relying on the SCOTUS to save our ass is not a good strategy.

  116. 116.

    Mary G

    Just like “Democrats are the real racists, because Robert Byrd was in the KKK,” I see Republicans taking credit for Obamacare fifty years from now, because Mitt Romney did it first and the Heritage Foundation thought of it.

  117. 117.

    Cacti

    @Corner Stone:

    Firebird skids to a stop in a dusty parking area of a gas station somewhere along Route 66. Silhouette in dust and shadow of a lean man standing up and slowly looking around. Shot of man walking towards door of gas station, from shoulders down to cowboy boots. Man pulls crumpled wad of bills out of pocket and slaps down on counter

    Firebird? Puh-leeze.

    It has to be Joe’s 1967 Corvette.

  119. 119.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @fuckwit:

    Hmm… conspiracy theory time: I wonder who exactly introduced that “error” into the bill. Maaaybeee… it was Yurtle? I am suddenly wondering if it wasn’t an innocent mistake, but a landmine inserted in committee somewhere by a Rethug hoping to sink the bill through a suit like this later on.

    No. The problem was there because it was a 900 page bill cobbled together by a complicated process. Every bill of similar length has similar issues.

  120. 120.

    Elizabelle

    WaPost website is more honest than Dana Bash, FoxWorld of sadness, et al:

    Republicans noisily outraged — and quietly relieved

    Karen Tumulty 12:19 PM ET

    The ruling on the health law gives a reprieve to Republicans, who have not produced a health-care law alternative.

  124. 124.

    AnotherBruce

    I’m really enjoying the comments at the Fox News site. An ocean of wingnut tears. And a fair amount of sane commentators enjoying the ride.

  125. 125.

    Corner Stone

    @Cacti: I relied on The Onion when I did my research for the upcoming movie I will be directing:
    Getting Their Kicks: Barack and Joe Hit Route 66

  127. 127.

    Mnemosyne (iPhone)

    @fuckwit:

    OO got there first but, yes, apparently if you go over any bill of any length with the kind of fine-toothed comb the right wing was using, you’ll find similar errors. As I understand it, they’re usually not a big deal because there is an established principle that the courts read the bill and go with what the bill seems to intend to do, which is why this case was potentially a giant pain in the ass for hundreds, if not thousands, of other cases.

  128. 128.

    Cervantes

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    I admire his conflating subject and object of a sentence on page 34 about ‘such regulations’, and then pretending he’s proved his point when his argument points in the opposite direction. It is extremely slick, and you really have to look closely to pick it apart.

    What’s all this about subject and object?

    I don’t buy Scalia’s argument there (it’s on p. 8 of his dissent, p. 34 of the PDF as a whole), but I don’t see it as “extremely slick,” either.

    Here’s how Roberts handled it:

    The dissent argues that the phrase “such Exchange” does not suggest that State and Federal Exchanges “are in all respects equivalent.” Post, at 8. In support, it quotes the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which makes the state legislature primarily responsible for prescribing election regulations, but allows Congress to “make or alter such Regulations.” Art. I, §4, cl. 1. No one would say that state and federal election regulations are in all respects equivalent, the dissent contends, so we should not say that State and Federal Exchanges are. But the Elections Clause does not precisely define what an election regulation must look like, so Congress can prescribe regulations that differ from what the State would prescribe. The Affordable Care Act does precisely define what an Exchange must look like, however, so a Federal Exchange cannot differ from a State Exchange.

  130. 130.

    Bruce K

    @chopper: Flanders or Atomic Robo, but I suspect that to compare Scalia with either of them is giving him too much undeserved respect.

  131. 131.

    Aleta

    @Keith G: Wanted to thank you on that other thread for saying this. (My inexpert opinion is that) people who need medication for mental health care don’t get the most effective drugs for their situation, because the insurance cos can refuse to pay for the pricier ones. It’s hard enough to prescribe for the nervous system, since it’s ‘designed’ to adjust. Fcking barbaric to make a suffering patient (my relative) conform to decisions that harm him, losing big pieces of his life as a result.

  132. 132.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @Germy Shoemangler:
    We can only guess at what’s inside a man’s mind. From the sheer vitriol the man spews, and his record of doing so while talking about how smart he is, I think he’s a pure narcissist like Cheney. Yes, he believes his arguments, because he is always right and arguments exist only to prove that fact. It’s not that he will lie to convince people that he’s right. It’s that he knows he is right 100% of the time, and any fact that supports him must be true, and any fact that doesn’t must be false. This is all speculation, but it’s the impression I get from his record and the tone of his whining. If he were trying to convince you, he would be more dignified.

  134. 134.

    Cervantes

    @fuckwit:

    I wonder who exactly introduced that “error” into the bill.

    Haste did.

    Nor is it the only drafting error in the bill. As Roberts put it:

    The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Act creates three separate Section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality.

    Elaboration is on p. 14 of the decision.

    Scalia disapproves (p. 17 of his dissent):

    Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that “established by the State” means “established by the State or the Federal Government,” the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.” Ante, at 14. This Court, however, has no free-floating power “to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.” Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 542 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Only when it is patently obvious to a reasonable reader that a drafting mistake has occurred may a court correct the mistake.

    The obvious rejoinder is obvious.

  138. 138.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @JPL: Ted Souris is a really, really stupid person, but you knew that with his description of himself as an “arch-conservative”.

  139. 139.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @Cervantes:

    What’s all this about subject and object?

    Here.

    as a fallback, the Elections Clause directs state legislatures to prescribe election regulations while allowing Congress to make “such Regulations” as a fallback. Would anybody refer to an election regulation made by Congress as a “regulation prescribed by the state legislature”?

    Notice how he includes the ‘prescribed by the state legislature’ part as if it were inherent, but they are two separate parts of the sentence. He tries to treat them as one so he can make the distinction, but in fact only the ‘regulation’ part is held constant in the original quoted law. And then, which I think is also clever, he pretends he’s made his point, when yes ‘such regulations’ would totally apply in his quoted passage the same way it does in the ACA. Now, a lawyer or anyone really good at debate logic might spot the bait-and-switch, but it reads so smoothly you really have to go back and hunt unless you’re used to such deceptions.

  140. 140.

    Germy Shoemangler

    Every time I watch TV news, whether network or PBS, someone from the “Club For Growth” is invited to share thoughts.

  142. 142.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @JPL: That P word has something to do with Ca$inos…another banned word with an s instead of a $. Word Press does not care about the FCC’s seven awful words, but doesn’t like pen1s, because that word is associated with spam.

  144. 144.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Some other “thoughts”, from the Glen Beck shop, so I deleted the link, the name is familiar, but I can’t remember why, and don’t really care

    Wayne Allyn Root @ WayneRoot
    Not many have the courage and balls to say what many smart people are thinking. “Was Justice Roberts BLACKMAILED?”
    Josh Barro retweeted
    Ben Shapiro ‏@ benshapiro 28 Jun 2012
    This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

    I always thought once The Virgin Ben got laid he’s unwind a little

  145. 145.

    Corner Stone

    @Betty Cracker:

    Cut to Jake Tapper, face contorted with rage. “Koooooooooolzzzzzz!”

    Cut to face of cashier busting through the door as the Firebird races away in a cloud of dust, tires squealing on pavement.
    Cashier Jake Tapper: {waving dust away} *Cough Cough*…I KNEW IT! OBAAAMMMAAA!!

  147. 147.

    Elizabelle

    @Aleta: not specifically a mental health drug, but The WaPost (I think?) had an article recently about regulators being surprised generic substitutes for long acting Concerta (ADHD drug) were still on the market, since it’s been proven they do not work as well as the original, and physicians were specifically writing scrips for the name brand.

    One of the two generic drug makers filed a lawsuit to be allowed to continue marketing its drug. The other dropped its production line.

    Looking for that article now.

  150. 150.

    raven

    <blockquote>U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Louisville, said on the Senate floor that the court's ruling "won't change Obamacare's multitude of broken promises, including the one that resulted in millions of Americans losing the coverage they had and wanted to keep."

    "Today's ruling won't change Obamacare's spectacular flops, from humiliating website debacles to the total collapse of exchanges in states run by the law's loudest cheerleaders," McConnell said. "Today's ruling won't change the skyrocketing costs in premiums, deductibles and co-pays that have hit the middle class so hard over the last few years."

    Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, who implemented a state-based health insurance exchange under the federal law and has heavily promoted its benefits, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Read more here: kentucky.com/2015/06/25/3917365/rand-paul-and-mitch-mcconnell.html#storylink=cpy

  151. 151.

    jl

    @Germy Shoemangler:

    ” I don’t know enough about him or his writing; is he dishonest or does he truly believe his own arguments? ”

    IANAL, but from what I have read on the legal blogs this morning, I have the same question. Can Scalia really believe his own arguments? Is this really a difficult statutory case that the majority had to perform legal somersaults to uphold compared to many other cases I have read about? It’s really hard for IANAL me to believe that he is writing in good faith.

  152. 152.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @jl:
    It’s an incredibly obvious and well established statutory case, like all the rest challenging the ACA. You underestimate the ability of the human mind to go ‘I want this to be true, so this feeble argument I came up with must actually be brilliant and correct.’

  153. 153.

    Mike J

    @sy:

    The cherry on top is that Scalia lost his shit … again.

    Scalia-stilkskin.

    Rumpelstiltskin “in his rage drove his right foot so far into the ground that it sank in up to his waist; then in a passion he seized the left foot with both hands and tore himself in two”. Other versions have Rumpelstiltskin driving his right foot so far into the ground that he creates a chasm and falls into it, never to be seen again. In the oral version originally collected by the brothers Grimm, Rumpelstiltskin flies out of the window on a cooking ladle.

  154. 154.

    Splitting Image

    Congratulations on a huge win for everyone who was biting their nails over this. 6-3 was my original guess for the first ACA decision and my hopes for this one were tempered by the fact that if Kennedy was not on board, the law’s survival depended on one John G. Roberts. That thought has been frightening me for the last three months.

    Fortunately, he and Kennedy both came through. Credit where credit is due. The collective sigh of relief may alter weather patterns around the U.S. for awhile, but it’s worth it.

  155. 155.

    Roger Moore

    @Patricia Kayden:

    When I clicked on Fox News briefly, one of their Blondes was asking what the Republican plan that could replace Obamacare actually looks like.

    It’s a piece of paper with “I’ve got mine, fuck you!” written on it.

  157. 157.

    jl

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    ‘I want this to be true, so this feeble argument I came up with must actually be brilliant and correct.’

    Thanks. It suddenly occurred to me that I R a economist. I should understand that enduring characteristic of human condition by now.

    Edit: from what I have read, Roberts and other majority writers really closed as many doors to more silly lawsuits as they could. You can almost hear a frustrated local judge yelling “get this **** out of my court and don’t come back’. That’s my impression from reading about the decision.

  158. 158.

    Bill

    @Elizabelle: The quotes over there are just incredible. Sorry to duplicate from he other thread, but this is just stunning:

    Benedict Robert’s adopted kids are ILLEGAL.

    SHIP THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY.

    SHOUT IT EVERYWHERE. LET EVERYONE KNOW.

    Then what will they have to blackmail him with?

    There’s pages and pages of accusations that Roberts’ kids are illegal, that he’s gay, that he’s a pedophile. Unreal.

  162. 162.

    Elizabelle

    @Aleta: Not the original story I saw, but here’s the WSJ on the generic Concerta issue. Generic maker Mallinckrodt sounds like a disingenuous bully.

    To what extent should the FDA be allowed to reclassify a generic drug when the agency believes it is no longer equivalent to the brand-name version?

    The issue is being raised in an unusual lawsuit claiming the agency overstepped its bounds by deciding two generic drugs used to treat ADHD should no longer be substituted for the widely used Concerta treatment. And the outcome of the case may have implications for generic drug makers and the FDA.

    …. In its lawsuit, which was filed last November, Mallinckrodt challenged the authority of the agency to reclassify its generic by arguing the FDA failed to provide sufficient notice of its decision and violated its Constitutional rights. Moreover, Mallinckrodt notes the FDA acknowledged there are no safety issues and patients should continue taking the generics if they are not experiencing problems.

    Issue wasn’t safety, though. It was that the generic drugs, expected to be long-acting, are not. A problem in a drug that might wear off before kids finish their homework, etc.

    They are not therapeutically equivalent to the name brand. They should not be automatically substituted by pharmacies.

  163. 163.

    Mike J

    Jack Womack on twitter:

    I think Scalia is at the point of calling for the people to be dissolved and replaced by another.

  164. 164.

    Elizabelle

    @Bill: Can only be happy the Free Republic crowd have had such a hard week.

    Although, so did we. (Nine shot dead by white supremacist in Charleston last Thursday.)

    This week has seemed like a domestic “hinge” in history.

  165. 165.

    Arclite

    I do appreciate that when the chips are down, Roberts is willing to make the “right” decision. He’s not completely ideological.

  167. 167.

    Fair Economist

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    He’s a narcissist, immature, dishonest, tantruming baby, but some of his sophistries are really clever. I admire his conflating subject and object of a sentence on page 34 about ‘such regulations’, and then pretending he’s proved his point when his argument points in the opposite direction.

    You say it’s slick. I say he can’t even follow his own arguments anymore. He decided his conclusions, made up a couple of “arguments” to support it, and can’t realize his arguments don’t support his conclusions.

    People going senile can often retain some of their skills at a high level even when overall they’re pretty far gone. Reagan could supposedly still give a hella good speech even when he could no longer remember what had been on the previous page.

  168. 168.

    fuckwit

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Thanks, I saw that. Well that’s good news; wouldn’t want to establish a precedent throwing the whole legal system into chaos just to gut one Obamacare. Of course, wasn’t it Scalia who wrote the Bush v. Gore opinion that said we’re just installing Bush as preznit, but you can’t apply this case to any other case? Glad he didn’t prevail in this one, and was relegated to the position of Throbbing Butthurt.

    Now I’m wondering if Scalia is doing us all a favor by getting more unhinged and irrational with each passing year. The other Justices can back away from him slowly, not wanting to be associated with him or his opinions or even his votes. Who knows, maybe we can even get more 6-3’s like this in favor of Doing The Right Thing… and if Scalia goes further overboard, even eventually some 8-1’s. Could you imagine a world in which not even Alito and Thomas want to be associated with him anymore?

  169. 169.

    Jeffro

    @shell: I honestly thought at or near the end of the Prez’s speech, he was going to say, “After all, this is a big…(slight glance towards Biden)…deal”. But you know, history, legacy, the honor of the office, all that…

  170. 170.

    Cervantes

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    as a fallback, the Elections Clause directs state legislatures to prescribe election regulations while allowing Congress to make “such Regulations” as a fallback. Would anybody refer to an election regulation made by Congress as a “regulation prescribed by the state legislature”?

    Notice how he includes the ‘prescribed by the state legislature’ part as if it were inherent, but they are two separate parts of the sentence. He tries to treat them as one so he can make the distinction, but in fact only the ‘regulation’ part is held constant in the original quoted law. And then, which I think is also clever, he pretends he’s made his point, when yes ‘such regulations’ would totally apply in his quoted passage the same way it does in the ACA. Now, a lawyer or anyone really good at debate logic might spot the bait-and-switch, but it reads so smoothly you really have to go back and hunt unless you’re used to such deceptions.

    It’s a bit alarming that you’ve had to get used to such deceptions! — what a sheltered life I’ve led — but no, I don’t see your point at all.

    I thought you were saying something about Scalia’s “conflating subject and object of a sentence.”

    Anyhow, I can’t stay — so feel free not to elaborate if you think it would be redundant.

  172. 172.

    JGabriel

    @Bill Arnold:

    I prefer to believe that he [Roberts] has a strong distaste for ridiculous arguments, as all justices should.

    I’d like to believe that, but I think a Republican appointee is required to believe ridiculous arguments on at least a semi-regular basis.

    In fact, I’m pretty sure the RNC sets minimum quotas for it. Or maybe the Koch Bros. One of them must, at any rate. The GOP tropism towards ridiculous arguments is otherwise inexplicable.

  173. 173.

    Anniecat45

    @JGabriel:

    Re Roberts’ motives: all I know is what I read about him, but I would guess that (1) he does not want to be viewed as a Republican hack; (2) he’s one of maybe six people in the U.S. who actually believes “judicial activism” means something, and does not want to overrule a major piece of legislation.

    It may also be that the hysterical shrieking of the extreme reich-wing puts him off their positions — that’s happened with a lot of ex- Republicans here in California.

  174. 174.

    Corner Stone

    @Fair Economist:

    You say it’s slick. I say he can’t even follow his own arguments anymore. He decided his conclusions, made up a couple of “arguments” to support it, and can’t realize his arguments don’t support his conclusions.

    People going senile can often retain some of their skills at a high level even when overall they’re pretty far gone.

    I’m not sure how anyone could look at the last few years of Scalia’s opinions and decide they were sophisticated, slick or even a fair reading of the law being addressed.
    I fully believe he’s well into being off his nut.

    ETA, who says jiggery poke herry and applesauce in a SCOTUS dissent? I see that and I think of Stockdale’s “GRIDLOCK!”

  175. 175.

    Corner Stone

    @Anniecat45:

    (2) he’s one of maybe six people in the U.S. who actually believes “judicial activism” means something, and does not want to overrule a major

    Sorry but have to disagree. Mr. Balls And Strikes has on more than one occasion passed over 100 years of precedent to rule the way he wanted to for partisan reasons.
    He’s a member of the Federalist Society. That’s the ball game as far as I am concerned.

  177. 177.

    dogwood

    It’s hard to know what Scalia, Thomas and Alito really think about the law. They are all smart men, capable of being competent jurists. But they are so controled by rage, resentment, and downright hatred, they they can’t be honest brokers when it comes to interpreting the law in an intellectually credible manner.

  178. 178.

    TriassicSands

    6-3 decision is what I thought the best case scenario would have been

    It’s what I call “a modern unanimous decision,” since the three clowns (I won’t insult the Three Stooges, the way someone did on the NY Times website today, by comparing Tony Calzoni, Popecito Alito, and that guy who never talks — to Moe, Larry, and Curly.)

    The Three Clowns are virtually a complete lost cause. Every once in a while, for who knows what reason, one of them will surface and vote in an unexpected way. For example, Thomas voted with the four non-radicals on the Texas vanity license plate decision. That kind of shocked me; I thought Thomas would have voted with the majorities in Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. But apparently the Confederate flag was just a bridge too far for ol’ Clarence.

    Scalia is the most laughable of the three. His tantrum today, labeled a dissent by the Court, is nothing more than the frenzied cry of an unfulfilled, loud-mouthed bully. In the past, he has claimed that we have to go by what the Constitution and laws say, not what we think they mean, which is the most absurd (to use Antonin’s own word) dodge of Supreme Court responsibility imaginable. And while it is true we can’t interview the framers to discover what exactly they meant by what they wrote in the 18th century, it was certainly no secret what the Congress meant and intended when it wrote the PPACA in 2010.

  179. 179.

    dogwood

    @Arclite:
    I think Roberts is completely ideological. He just has enough intellectual integrity and ego that he won’t sign onto the patently absurd. He has a very high opinion of himself.

  181. 181.

    Gravenstone

    @JPL: 80% subsidy level, and oh by the way, could retire early BECAUSE of O-care, but fuck Obama? No dude, fuck your fucking self regard and privilege. And while you’re at it, FUCK YOU!

  183. 183.

    dmbeaster

    Agree that the root motivation of Scalia is narciscism. It explains his tantrums and his flagrant intellectual dishonesty. His more recent behavior seems to reflect the pouting laziness resulting from not being able to convince others to follow his obviously brilliant way, rather than waning powers. They are no longer deserving of his best effort, so why deliver it.

    His textualism and original intent doctrines having always been phony since everything we know about the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution (and without question the bill of rights) was that they did not intend to limit meaning to only the words used – many of the concepts were deliberately vague. The legal practice at the time was to rely on courts for sorting out details – the practice of a written Constitution itself was sui generis for the time, and the legislatures also did not write bills anything like modern textual efforts.

    The only good in this is that Fat Tony’s jerk behavior is now more obvious.

  184. 184.

    Julie

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): My doctor prescribed me Oracea for the same condition and my insurance (which is better than a lot of people’s) declined to cover it unless I tried *five* cheaper drugs first. WTH?!

    BTW- I gave up on the prescription cream a couple years ago when the price went through the roof. The guy who invented that stuff offers an over-the-counter line now. Works almost as well and costs $35-50 depending on what you need: epionce.com/

  185. 185.

    catclub

    @dogwood:

    I think Roberts is completely ideological. He just has enough intellectual integrity and ego that he won’t sign onto the patently absurd. He has a very high opinion of himself.

    I think all the armchair analysis is pointless. I cannot imagine anyone in politics or law or the major media who does not have a very high opinion of him/herself.

  186. 186.

    catclub

    @Anniecat45:

    “judicial activism” means something, and does not want to overrule a major piece of legislation.

    Ha ha. Shelby County.

  187. 187.

    Tehanu

    @jl:
    Good faith? Scalia wouldn’t recognize good faith if it bit him on the ass. His entire tenure on the Court has been an exercise in twisting the English language and the law to make every decision come out the way the Koch Brothers want it to. He and the other rightwing operatives on the Court should have been tried and hanged for treason after Bush v. Gore. I’d love to be at the Pearly Gates when Scalia gets there and St. Peter kicks him onto the down escalator.

    Patricia Kayden said: When I clicked on Fox News briefly, one of their Blondes was asking what the Republican plan that could replace Obamacare actually looks like.

    It’s a piece of paper with “I’ve got mine, fuck you!” written on it.

    Too true.

  188. 188.

    catclub

    @Corner Stone:

    People going senile can often retain some of their skills at a high level even when overall they’re pretty far gone.

    Bridge partner. Did not know where he was. Could not find his way home. Did not know who was taking him home. Played the cards perfectly well.

  189. 189.

    Richard Mayhew

    @Roger Moore: That’s not the plan, that’s an ethos.

    The actual Obamacare super-duper double secret probabtion plan is “Fuck you”

  190. 190.

    Kathleen

    @Elizabelle: Yup.The villagers’ inability to discern reality and stick to their anti-Obama scripts is getting to be comical. It would be a good idea to catalog their predictions of doom not only on ACA but everything else they had written off. It would also be fun to catalog the Trail of Purity Troll Tears. Jackals all of them.

  191. 191.

    jonas

    Roberts’ (and the majority’s) opinion was pretty straight forward and actually based on a clear precedent: if language in one part of a piece of legislation is ambiguous, its meaning can be inferred from the context of the rest of the law and what it was intended to do. Then we have Scalia whining that, no, when language is ambiguous, we should split hairs over that very single word, regardless of what the rest of the law clearly intended and fuck precedent, especially if it contradicts my argument. How on earth did this clown ever become viewed as a serious legal thinker?

  192. 192.

    Kathleen

    @raven: Not sure what she’s doing today, but here’s a link to a Walk Down Memory Lane to the Jean Schmidt Hall of Shame:

    republicinsanity.tumblr.com/post/113067499918/jean-schmidt

    I used to see her at road races (she’s a formidable runner) but I’ve not raced much lately. I will give her props for this – I saw her running with a group that coaches homeless folks in association with a gospel mission downtown. There were no cameras, no publicity, just Jean running with the folks.

  194. 194.

    Richard mayhew

    @Kathleen: now under this ruling getting rid of My next is inconsequential as healthcare.gov takes over. The critical thing is Medicaid expansion

  195. 195.

    Bokonon

    The best thing is that in other Supreme Court decisions, on other issues, Scalia has backed the approach that Roberts used. Hypocrite much? Does Scalia think we can’t read his own precedents? High principle … right.

    Contrary to Scalia’s claim, the aggressive and activist judicial approach would be reaching out and invalidating statutes based on individual words read out of context, in order to produce perverse results and overturn the results of the political process. Now THAT would be the sign of a politicized, out-of-control Supreme Court.

  196. 196.

    Big Wayne

    Richard,
    You can’t expand a majority that doesn’t exist. We need to establish the majority first; then we can expand it.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Costs From a system perspective, Obamacare is part of the policy/economic mix that broke the second derivative of cost increases. This is a massive win at the federal fiscal level. However, part of the win is probably the proliferation of high deductible health plans which make people cut back from needed care. And so far, our pricing per unit of service is still way too high. As commennter Keith G notes: […]