Kennedy saves the Fair Housing Act, 5-4, but the big one, King v Burwell, 6-3 in favor of the Obama administration, Roberts and Kennedy siding with the four liberals. Subsidies in federal exchange states upheld.
Today is a good day.
[UPDATE] Texas Dept. of Housing decision here, King v Burwell decision here (now with bonus Scalia dissent snark).
raven
OK, that’s enough celebrating, back to bitching!
Glaukopis
Excellent!
kindness
Yippeeee!!!!
Soprano2
GOOD!!!!
Now, what will be the next wingnut approach to try to invalidate the healthcare law?
White Trash Liberal
Phew. Deep cleansing breath. Sad that there should have been and doubt, but the derp is so scary lately.
Buffalo Rude
@raven: Woo0000OOOOT!
Ok, thats out of my system. . . What are we pissed about today?
srv
Obama’s evil plan to blame Obamacare’s failure on the GOP has failed.
Rob
I am so happy for the ACA decision!
lurker dean
as handsome joe would say, this is a big f-ing deal!
zzyzx
W00000!
Jeffro
Over to FB to see what my winger friends and relatives are predicting based upon the ACA being upheld…end times much, anyone?
rikyrah
I am sitting here with tears in my eyes seeing the SC verdicts. I have been unemployed. I have been without insurance. I know that there is a sense of fear of anything going wrong medically. That MILLIONS of Americans have peace of mind…is overwhelming.
I can’t process the Fair Housing right now. I’m just on Obamacare.
themann1086
I won’t lose my health insurance!!!
Redshift
Woo hoo! I hadn’t realized how much tension I was feeling waiting for that decision until it was gone!
Steve in the ATL
Good lord Scalia is getting more bitter and deranged with each dissent. If one of my colleagues wrote that way about my legal acumen….
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Law of the Land, Motherfuckers!
raven
@Buffalo Rude: You name it, I’m pissed!
Alex S.
Good, this should mean that the battle against the ACA is over.
Craig
Not even Cheveron deference! The majority–the Chief Justice writing–said there is NO AMBIGUITY here. Best possible outcome.
(Even though the appeal WAS improvidently granted, such a ruling would only kick the can down the road until they found another set of plaintiffs.)
Steve From Antioch
Praise Jeebus.
At the same time, truly sad that 3 people bought the utter BS legal attack.
David Hunt
Sure, no problem. Do we know yet if Roberts has inserted any poison pills into his opinion?
Iowa Old Lady
Thank goodness. I was worried.
Xantar
I understand the celebration over the ACA subsidies being saved, but the whole case really never should have happened in the first place. The whole lawsuit was so stupid that it just should never have even gotten this far and there never should have been any doubt.
So to me, this is merely an affirmation that only three of the SCOTUS justices are raving morons.
Kristine
My friends in red states won’t lose their coverage.
So glad..
Sherparick
I think Kennedy and Roberts walked back from this since December 2014 when their were at least 4 SCOTUS for yanking it out of the 4th Circuit before the “En Banc” review. The realization of 1) how stupid the argument was; 2) how many people both directly and indirectly would have been affected; and 3) how incapable the Republicans/Confederates would have been in responding to the chaos in the Red States probably caused Roberts and Kennedy to reconsider.
Elizabelle
“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say …
Obamacare now, Obamacare tomorrow, Obamacare forever.”
Until we get something even better. It’s the gateway drug.
Woo hoo!
MattF
@Xantar: One raving moron and two silent morons.
Germy Shoemangler
Goodness gracious great balls of fire.
Elizabelle
@Steve From Antioch: No surprise who the 3 were though, hmmm?
I hope Scalia retires soon, or is retired. He is a bad Catholic and a terrible jurist.
ruemara
I can keep my unaffordable health insurance! Yay-issh… But for people in red states, I’m blessed that they get to keep theirs too. It’s uglier without insurance.
shortstop
Feeling pretty spanky over here. And tomorrow maybe a decision in Obergefell?
FortGeek
@Buffalo Rude: I’m still pretty pissed that those jackholes in South Carolina couldn’t be bothered to honor one of their own by voting to take that farking flag down even for a few hours yesterday.
His casket was carried past the damn thing. Black drapes were put up on the Capitol’s windows so people didn’t have to see it peeking in.
The SC legislature…bunch of wretched slimy bottom-of-the-cesspool scum.
Omnes Omnibus
@Xantar: Jesus fucking Christ.
6-3. At first glance, it looks like simple, standard rules of statutory interpretation won the day.. Yes, the decision should have been 9-0 in a sane Court, but I’ll take it.
chopper
@David Hunt:
looks pretty straightforward to me.
as to ‘poison pills’ i’m worried more about the SSM decision.
Cluttered Mind
@Xantar: Agreed. The big takeaway from this case is that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are not fit to serve on the Supreme Court and their very presence there is an insult to the entire American Judicial system. This case shows that they’d codify 2+2=5 if it would score partisan points for the GOP.
I’m thrilled that the case was decided in favor of sanity, but this just goes to show how absolutely essential it is for the Democrats to hold the White House. Notorious RBG isn’t going to live forever, no matter how awesome it would be if she did. Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer are getting up there in years too. It’s highly probable that the next President will get to choose at least one, and possibly as many as four new justices. If they all get replaced by Alito/Thomas/Scalia clones, we’re in for several decades of horror.
icedfire
Kennedy has yet to write a majority opinion for April…seems to bode well for Obergefell.
LAC
Yes! another Obama legacy euology by all the know nothings in the media put on hold.
Omnes Omnibus
@Sherparick: We don’t actually know which Justices voted to grant cert..
Cluttered Mind
@Elizabelle: Scalia’s on record as saying that he’s right and the Pope (and the Church as a whole) is wrong on the issue of the death penalty. I’m pretty sure you that you can’t get any more bad catholic than saying you know better than the Pope when it comes to issues of life, death, and morality.
Cluttered Mind
@Steve From Antioch: I don’t think the legal attack was even in question. Those three just saw an opportunity to score political points for the GOP and went for it. The actual merits of the case didn’t matter. They’re dangerous people who shouldn’t be on the court.
Keith G
@raven: I think we should consider this the Raven Paradox. There can be no blue sky bright enough that someone here won’t find, or imagine, a raft of oncoming dark clouds to complain about.
chopper
@Cluttered Mind:
fixed.
Mothra
Such wonderful news! Such great, great news.
I almost feel small minded for laughing at Scalia’s temper tantrum, and at the despair over at Free Republic.
Xantar
I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know the significance of this. However, my reading of the decision is that Chief Justice says Chevron does not hold and therefore it’s up to the Supreme Court to make the statutory interpretation, not the government agency. So this could be a sneaky power grab even while upholding the ACA subsidies.
shortstop
@Cluttered Mind: The pope used to be infallible. I know because politically conservative Catholics were always telling us so. Then we got this pope, and suddenly the vicar of Peter is doin it rong.
dogwood
The King decision is huge if what Kay and others predict about the effects of TPP are true. My biggest beef with Clinton was that he signed off on welfare reform and NAFTA without requiring congress to do a damn thing about healthcare security. At least Obama passed some health care reform before he started screwing with workers. I grew up in u ionized mining country, and when those mines started closing in the 80’s people didn’t just lose a job that paid a decent wage, they lost access to healthcare for decades.
askew
Whew! I was really worried about the ACA case. Like many, I thought they’d rule for gay marriage and against ACA.
I am even more surprised Kennedy ruled for FHA.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
You do wonder who long spite can sustain Il Nino and Silent Cal II. I think Scalia will hang on till his heart bursts, and then Thomas will load Ginny and her crate of boxed pinot in to the RV and head for an endowed chair at Branson.
shortstop
People who continually start out threads complaining that others are going to complain are…well, winning the complaining game hands down.
Steve From Antioch
@Cluttered Mind:
Exactly so. If a fly had landed on the page rendering the official printing the Afxordable Care Act, that would have been enough for Jonathan Adler and those other assholes to argue that the law was defective.
divF
@Xantar:
The reading over at SCOTUSBlog is that this doesn’t change Chevron, since this was a case that the Congressional intent was so clear that there was no statutory ambiguity to be delegated to the executive.
raven
@Keith G:if the thunder don’t get ya the lighting will!
SatanicPanic
Hahahahah SUCK IT right wingers
shortstop
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I actually think Alito is the worst of the bunch. Scalia distracts with his bombast and blowhardery, but Alito is a true believer — at least as inflexible and partisan as Scalia — who tries not to attract attention. Plus, Sam seems less likely to drop dead of a rage-induced MI during a Democratic administration.
Culture of Truth
Ben Shapiro @benshapiro
“Words don’t mean anything. Laws don’t mean anything. The law is, apparently, whatever Obama says it is.”
SO MANY SADS
Kathleen
@Cluttered Mind: The phrase “more Catholic than the Pope” comes to mind.
Also, too, I’m so relieved about ACA decision, even though I am on Medicare and don’t have to worry about insurance. So relieved. And pleasantly surprised.
Walker
There is still EPA to go. Not too hopeful on that one.
dmsilev
@shortstop: Are you complaining about the people complaining about complainers?
Poopyman
@Steve in the ATL: IANAL, of course, but the dissent seems to boil down to the assertion that “State” cannot mean (or include) the Federal Govt.
That would be a new one on me.
Valdivia
Now that this is decided I can say what I thought since the case was taken by the Court: since it takes 4 Justices to take a case, I thought that Roberts opted to take it but with the opposite intent of the other 3, to quash once and for all the idiotic lawsuits against it. Don’t know it will have the intended effect though.
AkaDad
I’ve never been a fan of the ACA, preffering a national health care system, but the pragmatist in me knows that the ACA is a lot better than what we had and perhaps was the only way to eventually get there. So yes, I,m glad it was upheld.
geg6
A great day. Simply a great day. Here’s hoping tomorrow is just as great.
Unsympathetic
Scalia actually cited Marbury v Madison.. to back up his claim that black words matter.
You go, girlfriend.
dmsilev
@Culture of Truth: He’s almost quoting from Scalia’s dissent, which really should be read for its amusement value.
shortstop
@Culture of Truth: Wait till they lose Obergefell tomorrow. Oh, it’s going to be a good weekend (or, at the worst, good next week).
SatanicPanic
@divF: yeah, for the first time I actually read the ruling (IANAL) and it’s pretty easy to understand. Shorter- obviously they meant for people to get subsidies or it wouldn’t work otherwise.
shortstop
@dmsilev: I was, but I’m back to being Sally Fucking Sunshine now! Kisses and rainbows for all! No unicorns, though. I hate them.
rikyrah
Hopefully we will get a statement from the President about Obamacare…and that he will stroll down ‘ I killed Bin Laden’ lane to give the statement.
dedc79
@divF: Correct, this was not an attack of or retreat from Chevron. This was an F U to the crazies who argued the law was ambiguous.
Chevron only comes into play if the law is ambiguous and the court needs to decide whether to accept the government’s interpretation.
Chyron HR
Another setback for true progressives. :(
Mnemosyne (tablet)
PHEW! Very relieved that sanity prevailed for ar least 5 justices on each case. Sucks that every goddamned thing has to be such a nailbiter.
Tyro
Scalia’s dissent was much less snarky and entertaining than what I was hoping for. It was basically an opinion-long tantrum.
Elizabelle
@dogwood: Bingo.
When well-heeled friends of mine would whinge “Obama should have started with JOBS!”, I knew in my heart that he went with affordable healthcare because the nature of jobs has changed, and you can no longer tie health insurance coverage to employment status.
Those friends, totebaggers all, never understood that. Who knows or cares if they do now.
Steve in the ATL
@Poopyman: The fact that the dissent’s argument is so obviously stupid even to non-lawyers tells you just how bad these three clowns are.
@shortstop: I concur (heh). Alito is the worst justice in a looooong time. Scalia is a partisal hack, but Alito is a true believer.
SatanicPanic
@Valdivia: yeah, I kind of think he did that too. He seems to be a slightly different type of conservative than the others- he’s there to protect corporate America, which may or not be worried that it will start being a casualty in Republicans’ war on everything.
shortstop
@rikyrah: I guess it would be undignified for him to dance at the actual presser, but I’m kind of hoping he will.
different-church-lady
@raven: Thread won in one move.
divF
@divF: Further commentary from SCOTUSBlog:
It looks like Roberts really wanted to slam the door on any further silliness on ACA.
dmsilev
@shortstop: With you on the unicorns. Those pointy-headed buggers are up to no good.
shortstop
@Valdivia: I hereby acknowledge without hesitation that VALDIVIA WAS RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG. I WAS WRONG. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. And I could not be happier to say it!
japa21
Pleased about both decisions today and the SSM case will be decidied properly, I am pretty confident. However, I have a feeling the EPA case will go against the administration.
glory b
@Steve From Antioch: They didn’t buy it, they just had to rule against the ni Clang! in the white House.
however, I beg to differ about the Fair Housing Act. It IS a big deal. Proving a discrimination case would have become vastly harder.
Valdivia
@SatanicPanic: It’s because of the way the decision was made, and his argument, that I speculate that if he voted to grant cert it was with one purpose: a decision that made it clear that this stupid lawsuits would not win.
@shortstop: OMG, I am just happy, no need for that :D
ETA: I totally agree on Alito. He is the worst of the bunch. Also young and a true believer.
Elizabelle
@Valdivia: I guessed that too.
Never took part in any of Cole’s despairfest posts, because seemed better to wait and see.
Omnes Omnibus
@Xantar: Aside from the fact that you seem to be looking for clouds to go with your silver lining, I think you are off here.
Source
@divF: Exactly.
raven
@glory b: I have to say it takes sand for this asshole to show up here when his shit has been ground to dust.
Unsympathetic
@Elizabelle: Possibly ironically, the sector that’s added the most jobs over Obama’s tenure as Chief African in Charge? Health care, of course.
shortstop
@Valdivia: :) I try hard not to be one of those people who can’t admit error.
Omnes Omnibus
@Valdivia: I wondered about that myself.
Bobby B.
Someone tell Opus Dei that Scalia is anti-Pope.
Poopyman
CNN.com haz a glad:
In about 72-point type.
Paul in KY
@rikyrah: I want him to call it ‘Obamacare’ with a big grin on his face.
glory b
@Culture of Truth: No, the first lesson in law school is that the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
But Ben knows that.
Paul in KY
@shortstop: He could bring Luther out with him :-)
JPL
Thursday is the day that I pick up a veggie share and raw milk from the farmer, so missed the excitement. Of course, I did manage to misplace my keys so my nerves were on edge.
Congrats to all that this law has helped.
also, too.. suck on it Scalia for being such a hypocrite.
askew
@japa21:
What’s the EPA case again?
Elizabelle
President Obama to speak in a few, CNN site says.
Tuning in.
Valdivia
@Elizabelle: @Omnes Omnibus: I am the first to think of the conservative justices as hacks, but with this case I just couldn’t see Roberts granting cert for any other reason. Justices sometimes take cases to rule in ways that send messages and that’s what this felt like from the beginning.
@shortstop: And a tip of the hat to you for that. :)
I too believe in that and try hard to do so.
Valdivia
@Paul in KY: Oh that would so be the cherry on top of this day for me!
zmulls
According to SCOTUSBlog, and a reading of that portion of the opinion, Chevron “Step 0” is to determine whether Congress intended the government agency to resolve any ambiguity, and it failed that test. They didn’t use Chevron because, in their interpretation, there was no properly authorized government agency legally empowered to determine the “true” meaning.
They went instead to what looks like “standard law school rules of interpretation” which means you have to look at the whole law, and the phrase in context. Which is what they did.
Scalia keeps sounding like Humpty Dumpty (“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean”). Over and over he says”‘Established by the State’ means ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE, MORONS!” He insists that no intelligent person could think otherwise, and that it was clear that subsidies were only intended for the State-created agencies.
I agree that Alito is the most dangerous of the bunch. Scalia is a ranter, and Thomas is deeply resentful; but Alito is one of those guys who tried all his life to get into the Club, and now that he’s in it, nobody else gets a break. They’ll just have to work hard like he did. I wouldn’t be suprised if he thought that only property owners should get a vote.
And Roberts, yeah, my worry about Roberts all along was that he was a business guy, and would always vote for the rights of businesses over the rights of individuals. Which is what saved us here, as business needed the subsidies to continue.
shortstop
@Paul in KY: An inspired idea.
JGabriel
@Valdivia:
I thought Kennedy was probably the fourth vote, given his vote against the ACA in the last case that was brought against it. That said, your idea sounds feasible too, with one caveat – Roberts really doesn’t like the ACA. He knows it’s constitutional, and he’s not going to vote against the companies making or saving money from it, but he doesn’t like it.
So I still think Kennedy was most likely the fourth vote to for hearing King v. Burwell – maybe because he wanted to correct his last vote now that the ACA is clearly helping people – but Roberts, voting to hear it just so he wouldn’t have to deal with the ACA ever again, is a reasonable speculation too.
Patricia Kayden
Thank goodness for those great decisions!! So happy. Boehner must be somewhere drinking himself silly.
Jerry O'Brien
@Cluttered Mind: Most Catholics probably think they know better than the Pope about something or other, but yeah, they usually try not to say it too loudly.
CONGRATULATIONS!
I agree with one part of Scalia’s dissent; Congress throws all the hard shit to the courts so they won’t have to make unpopular decisions.
The rest of it is pages of nitpicking over the lack of two words in the ACA statute. At least he writes well.
It’ll be interesting to see if Alito’s rulings change once Obama leaves office. I suspect he’s been voting the way he has based on specific personal animus, but I could be wrong.
JPL
Scalia called the court’s reasoning pure applesauce. He certainly refers to food a lot.
Unsympathetic
Tasty wingnut snark: Scalia’s use of “interpretive jiggery-pokery”
Next he’ll enshrine Colbert’s advisor Ham Rove in legislative text.
D58826
Rand Paul is describing a healthcare law and market that simply doesn’t exist under Obamacare. THey will never give up. Just as the Civil War lost cause will live on so will the repeal obamacare nonsense.
Bobby Thomson
@Craig: no, he says repeatedly that the law is ambiguous. That’s why they went to legislative intent, purpose, and structure.
Scalia would have a point if he weren’t so inconsistent and intellectually dishonest with his “originalsm.” A crimped, overly formalistic, and wrong point, but a point. He’s just a hack.
shortstop
I must go slumming in various online wingnut dives. I need to taste the sweetness of their salty, salty tears.
Culture of Truth
Iowa Old Lady
@shortstop: Oh do! Report back.
eldorado
i was able to start my own business in a red state because i knew i could get insurance. this is such great news.
Omnes Omnibus
Now to read the dissent.
Culture of Truth
I quoted Scalia and now my post is in moderation. LOL
Brachiator
Now, this is a good start to the day. I actually have to do work related to the tax compliance aspects of the decision, so I don’t have time to read the political implication stuff.
A couple of quick questions.
Who wrote the majority opinion? Any separate concurring opinions? Anything interesting or caustic in the dissents?
The GOP Klown Kar will go nuts over this, and Republicans in Congress will foam at the mouth. But fools and stooges who said that Obama had staked too much on one big achievement, health care, can all suck it.
It ain’t perfect. It couldn’t have been. But opponents have to work harder to block anything (and their will be budget battles). And those who want magic unicorn health care need to get off their clouds and come up with practical ways to improve what has been laid out.
And I want to see the Democratic presidential candidates sign on, own health care, and make improvements part of their stump speeches. Should be easy peezy for Hillary, especially.
Tripod
This is a big fuckin’ deal.
dmsilev
@shortstop: Here’s RedState:
Bobby Thomson
@divF: that’s not what Roberts said. He said it was so important that the court wouldn’t defer.
Omnes Omnibus
@Brachiator: Roberts wrote it. No separate concurrences. I can’t answer the dissent questions because I am just starting to read it.
D58826
According to Jeffrey Tubin on CNN statuary interpretation involves reviewing the entire context of the law and not just a word by word review. This has been Scalia’s position in the past. In fact I think he wrote a book on that subject. I guess now Scalia will have to add a footnote that says the book still applies, unless it is about President Obama.
Valdivia
@JGabriel: Yes Kennedy voting for cert is also a good guess. I think either way the 4th vote didn’t grant it with the same intent as the other 3.
I also think that Roberts for all his hackishness and not liking the ACA, sees his role as Chief Justice with an eye to the future. Something the other 3 crazies don’t ever do.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: SCOTUSCare!
MomSense
Poor Scalia.
Omnes Omnibus
Dear god, the dissent is a masterpiece of hackery and weaselishness.
Iowa Old Lady
@D58826: I’m starting to think that Scalia will soon be sending in his opinions from the thorazine bake-off.
JGabriel
@Xantar:
Which is still a damn sight better than 5. Let’s be grateful for small mercies.
MomSense
@shortstop:
I like mine with olives and lots of vodka.
Valdivia
Ha ha ha. Not SCOTUS related but this just made my day, again. Take that Trump.
Jerry O'Brien
@Valdivia: I also thought at least one justice who chose to take the case figured it would go against the plaintiffs, and preferred to get it done quickly. Now that seems quite likely. I never thought Roberts or Kennedy was inclined to support King. It might even have been one or more of the liberals agreeing that the Supreme Court should take the case now.
opiejeanne
Can someone unpack the following for me? I didn’t get much sleep last night and my brain is not yet functioning properly.
comment under the Slate article about this decision: Never in doubt …
– Kennedy was never “The Swing Vote”
– Roberts is a TRUE Libertarian
Poopyman
@Omnes Omnibus:
I know you’re a professional or I’d remind you not to hurt yourself trying to see its POV.
Elizabelle
President Obama to speak about 11:30 a.
Caught me Fox-watching. Fox Blonde to Chris Wallace: What do you think the President will say?
Chris Wallace: “I suspect he’s gonna do his best not to crow about this.”
Roger Moore
@JGabriel:
This.
TS
I shall never again speculate as to which cases will be announced on which days. Or maybe not. It could be helpful that I am always wrong.
As for the GOP – I think there are many in congress who are very happy they don’t have to face the insurance companies and the people who would have become uninsured. Millions voted for Health Care in 2008 and would do it again in 2016 if the ACA subsidies had been lost.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Paul in KY: Luther wouldn’t have anything to do.
Be nice to see him just stand there beside the President and smile.
@Brachiator: Hillary has already weighed in on Twitter.
IANAL, but I have a sense from what I’ve read of the opinion that Roberts wanted to squash this nitpicking of the language of the law.
Scamp Dog
@dmsilev: The fact that you’re complaining about that is my complaint about you!
JGabriel
Valdivia:
I’m keeping a hopeful weather eye on Roberts. I’m pretty damn certain he voted to preserve the ACA because it works for business, and not because he cares about helping people, but he wouldn’t be the first conservative SCOTUS justice to become more liberal after serving a few years on the bench.
I don’t think that’s likely to happen – but I think if it does happen to any of those five it will probably be Roberts.
Elizabelle
I wonder if the Supreme Court would decide Citizens United differently, if they got a do-over.
I would like to think Kennedy would change his vote. Maybe Roberts too. We would not have the Klown Kar without Citizens United.
Poopyman
@Patricia Kayden:
Boehner is overjoyed too, because now he doesn’t have to preside over a bunch of monkeys tasked with trying to “fix” it.
mai naem mobile
Fucking awesome! Ive been holding my breath on.this one.because while.I.dont get subsidies I’m pretty sure my state wouldnt set.up its.own marketplace cuz GOP governator and legislature.
Keith G
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.
Cermet
Robert’s did add a poison pill so to speak – one to stop further challenges on these merits. His opinion as I have read others claim (may be wrong here since I’m depending on a single quote) is that looking at the whole ACA law, the single phase that was used by the thugs for the case, while it does undermine the subsidies, cannot be allowed since the overall law supports health care and so the ACA stands. He has killed an array of methods/possible challenges the thugs could have tried but now – can’t. Roberts went well above a simple ruling and strengthened the law a great deal – wow!
Steve in the ATL
@opiejeanne:
Easy to explain: both those statements are wrong.
Culture of Truth
“There’s a Justice who’s sure all that glitters is gold
And he’s buying a stairway to the Supreme Court.”
“There’s a sign on the wall – but he wants to be sure,
‘Cause you know sometimes words have no meaning.”
JPL
@Elizabelle: You are a brave Fox watcher. lol
Omnes Omnibus
The conclusion of the dissent:
Projection much?
JGabriel
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism:
Luther could brazenly and gloatingly mock Scalia.
JGabriel
@Omnes Omnibus: So much projection that Scalia has his own booth in a theater.
Frankensteinbeck
I’ve been reading the dissent. Scalia pretends legal context doesn’t exist, in a very whiny tone. Seriously, a lot of his arguments rely on case law being the exact opposite of what it is. I know what case law is in this case, because the majority opinion heavily cites it! Scalia cites a couple of the same general rules, then just… pretends the various context rules the majority applies don’t exist. @dmsilev is right, he specifically says that the court is making this decision solely to please Obama. Said about Roberts and Kennedy, that’s hilarious. He also pulls an interesting bit of sophistry on page 34 about ‘such Regulations’, mixing up subject and object in a sentence to state that something doesn’t work, when it does actually work.
EDIT – @Omnes Omnibus:
I know, right? IANAL, but comparing it to the majority opinion, it’s obvious.
Elizabelle
OT: news this morning out of the capitol of Old Virginny:
Arthur Ashe statue there too. Unlike the others, it is stone ugly. (sigh) (But glad it is on Monument Avenue at all.)
Elizabelle
@JPL: Lasted 90 seconds! On 3 attempts.
They were going weapons grade. Rand Paul up next. Blonde: “He’s proposing real solutions. What are those solutions? We’ll talk with Senator Paul next.”
FlipYrWhig
@D58826:
“Obamacare” will continue to be used by conservatives as an epithet, like “welfare,” especially when they’re in the waiting room at the doctor’s office and they’re behind someone black or who speaks Spanish. That’s what it means to them: Those People get to go to the doctor for cheap.
Steve in the ATL
@Elizabelle: We refer to those statues as “second place trophies”
Elizabelle
About to set the DVR. Gonna record PBO’s remarks. Woo hoo.
ETA: On a sadder occasion, gonna record the Clementa Pinckney service too, tomorrow.
Bill
“Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid. ”
Majority opinion at 15.
It is amazing what can happen when the interests of the American people and corporations are aligned. Nobody wanted a death spiral. Roberts et al. recognized that. This opinion is the best possible outcome. No Chevron deference, just straightforward statutory interpretation based on a finding of ambiguity.
Now on to read Scalia’s tears dripping on the page.
Frankensteinbeck
@FlipYrWhig:
I think you’re right. Just like welfare, it won’t be Obamacare when THEY get it, because they’re not moochers (IE: black people) taking handouts from the government.
EDIT – @Bill:
He doesn’t cry. He throws a tantrum. ‘You’re all meanie-heads. The law I make up in my head is very clear! How can you not see that?’ It’s pretty funny.
burnspbesq
Cole and Lemieux will be dining together tonight. We should send a bottle of a nice, dry white wine over to their table. That will go nicely with crow.
Villago Delenda Est
I, for one, see this with mixed feelings.
For example, now we’ll never know what Yertl’s secret plan was.
TriassicSands
Tony Calzoni’s tantrum, um, I mean dissent, is worth a few laughs. The guy has no shame. It would be entertaining if he weren’t involved in hurting so many people, so often. Fortunately, this time his opinion is just the pathetic whining of an unfulfilled bully.
Boo hoo, Tony.
How can anyone (other than Alito and Thomas) take Scalia seriously?
Elizabelle
Rand Paul starts out: “As a physician and a Senator” …. he says the “worst parts … are patient choice — [not being able to] choose your doctor and the ability to buy less expensive insurance plans.”
Rand’s down with people buying subpar insurance. He says Obamacare is too expensive (true, but obviously, cost of insurance policies will come down, the more people who sign up).
(Patient choice: without insurance, there IS no patient choice.)
RPaul says the only way they can bring change to Obamacare is if if they win an election.
Good luck with that, Doctor. Not.
He thinks Americans are going to wake up and say “we prefer freedom and (liberty?) and choice.” Tell us when that happens.
As expected, Rand Paul has nothing to say. Those in Kentucky who enjoy their ACA Kynect insurance might listen to him a little more closely.
Omnes Omnibus
@Villago Delenda Est: You know what his plan was. It was to do fuck all about it.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Villago Delenda Est: Marco Rubio has come out for a consumer based plan, which he will explain in detail as soon as he asked, because I am regularly informed, sometimes by EvenTheLiberalMSNBC, that Marco Rubio is a smart-young-Reformicon
Villago Delenda Est
@Elizabelle: “As a physician and a senator”.
What a waste of skin that creature is.
catclub
@Xantar:
So now we wonder even more which 4 voted to grant cert. I am thinking that some liberals of the court might have been involved, just to slap it down most effectively.
raven
Prez up.
Jeffro
@Frankensteinbeck: Did Nino offer to take back Bush v. Gore if the Court would just see it his way on the ACA?
captnkurt
If you feel like enjoying some wingnut tears, please enjoy the comments section at FreeRepublic.
the Conster
“It’s all applesauce” is my new favorite saying. I have no idea what it means, but thanks
ObamaScalia!catclub
@TriassicSands:
Somebody on LGM pointed out that “Tony” is Anthony Kennedy. Antonin Scalia is “Nino”
b
@shortstop:
I agree-he is a mean spirirted, true believer who I find to be truly evil but very skilled as an assassin.
Aleta
There were so many discouraging concessions to the insurance companies as the ACA was whittled down to suit them, and true, they’re making out like bandits now. I was bummed. But President Obama was smart enough to do whatever he had to, to just get it operating. Cause this is not just a foot in the door, it’s taking the door off its hinges.
Mandalay
Huckabee has a solution to all this nonsense:
Huckabee will focus on prevention so there is no need for the ACA. Easy peasy. I can’t understand why nobody else thought of his cunning plan.
Villago Delenda Est
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: One of the major problems with health care in this country, even under NearSheriffCare, is that there are twits who think of those who need health care as “consumers”, not “patients”. The need for health care, the nature of health care, means it’s not something one seeks or obtains the way one wanders into Best Buy or Video Only and looks for a new widescreen TV.
Marco Rubio is a moran.
gogol's wife
@Cluttered Mind:
Absolutely. I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for ANY Democrat for President.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mandalay: What you’re supposed to do is buy Hucksterbee’s cinnamon based “solutions” to diabetes, for example.
Elizabelle
@Aleta:
Prezactly! Thank Dog!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Exactly, commodity vs basic human right. I don’t expect that phrasing to change the minds of hardcore Dittoheads (is that still a thing?) people like that guy in No Caro (until they get sick), but I think it’s a good argument that Dems should be making.
the Conster
@Aleta:
The ACA was a quid pro quo. Now insurance companies actually have to insure everyone instead of coming up with a million ways to deny coverage, in exchange for uninsureds being funneled into their arms. Not a bad first step, especially for President Blackety McBlack.
Omnes Omnibus
@Aleta: @Elizabelle: The biggest thing that the ACA did was establish the concept of healthcare as a right.
Cluttered Mind
@Jerry O’Brien: People are entitled to whatever thoughts and private words they want. I’m certain that there are tons of conversations that take place in Catholic homes worldwide every day centering around the idiocy of , and that’s not likely to ever change. That said, saying it loudly is not okay. Especially for a prominent Catholic public servant like Scalia.
catclub
@TS:
Important if true. The number affected by this decision is millions, but the nation is hundreds of millions. It is a few percent of the population that is affected. Not on Medicaid, not on Medicare, not covered on employers health insurance, not in a big blue state with its state established exchange, AND already covered on exchange policy, AND willing to vote on this issue. 1.5% of the population?
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus: “To promote the General Welfare”.
Mind you, this is in the preamble to the document that Jesus himself directed the Archangel Gabriel to hand deliver on stone tablets to Madison, Franklin, et al.
boatboy_srq
@Poopyman: That struck me too. On the one hand it goes to the heart of the Confederatists and their constant demands for secession; on the other, it’s just plain illiterate. Dollars to doughnuts there are plenty of federal laws similarly worded which would fail that test as well: one reason Roberts may have sided upheld ACA, since deciding against it would have invalidated some of his pet programs. One wonders whether some ACA-sympathetic clerk took him aside and showed him a dozen or so different laws that could be summarily challenged by a decision for the plaintiffs…
I’m also persuaded that one of the reasons this went as it did was the sheer weakness of the plaintiffs and their reflection on the case. If four people (out of perhaps 80 million potential plaintiffs*), at least half of whom are easily dismissed for lack of standing and the remainder coming off as Grumpy White People P!ssed About TABMITWH, are the best the Great Conservatist Machine can come up with to dispute six words in a 2000-page piece of legislation, then they can’t have much of a case – and the only thing to do is decide firmly in favor of the defense.
* US population in 2015 is 318 million and change. 80 million is roughly 1/4 of that: faster and simpler than summing the population of the federal-exchange states.
Betty Cracker
OMFG! Did Justice Thomas cite NBA demographics as an argument to get rid of the Fair Housing Act?
Cluttered Mind
@gogol’s wife: Yup. Congress might be able to prevent President Hillary Clinton or President Bernie Sanders from doing almost anything, but short of constitutional amendments they can’t interfere with the Supreme Court once a Justice has been seated.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
PBO: This was a good day for America. Now let’s get back to work.
TS
@catclub:
As the President noted – millions have health insurance without knowing it is via Obamacare. If a candidate made this clear and repeated it over and over (as did President Obama) – they would get the message
SFAW
@shortstop:
Then you haven’t been cooking them right.
Omnes Omnibus
@boatboy_srq: .
Of course there are. No statute is perfectly worded. That is why there are rules of statutory interpretation. All the Court did was apply those rules.
Jeffro
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/consumers-express-relief-after-health-law-ruling-thank-god-hallelujah/2015/06/25/78cb900c-15cd-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html?hpid=z2
Here is the money quote from a self-described “arch-conservative” (lol):
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.
Hey, how ’bout them apples??
Joel
@Keith G: Have you listened to the Radiolab episode, “Worth” yet? It’s very relevant to your point, I think.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/worth/
Speaking as someone in the (academic) sciences, there are real issues at stake.
SFAW
@catclub:
Or, as some like to call him, “Fat Nino.” Well, “some,” meaning me.
Brachiator
@Omnes Omnibus:
Thanks very much.
I just had to sneak a peak at some of the comments here and elsewhere. Lots of good stuff. There should be some fun 4th of July discussions about this and other upcoming Supreme Court decisions.
Aleta
Good description of what’s being done to education now.
SFAW
@Jeffro:
I can’t tell if he’s giving extremely grudging “praise” to Obama, or doing a variant of “keep yore gummint hands off my Medicare, which I loves.”
Cervantes
@raven:
I (should) have stilled the obvious rejoinder.
SFAW
@Villago Delenda Est:
On the other hand, Republican Jesus originally wrote it as “promote the General Warfare. Against those Others. If you know what I mean, and I think you do. selah “
Elizabelle
Some sad and stupid people calling in to C-Span on Republican line.
Just heard from a woman from Colorado. Says she works 80 hours a week and makes $21,000. She’s bitter about not being able to afford insurance, and bitter that people who don’t work get Medicaid.
She should be eligible for a subsidy with that income, shouldn’t she? If not, that’s criminal.
Stupid, stupid woman. Earlier GOP caller was a man talking about working people being barely afloat, and his insurance premium went up 35%. Like that never happened before ACA. And he’s got a $10K deductible.
Over time, we will have better and more affordable insurance, and better health outcomes. These people sound bitter and stupid.
Jeffro
@SFAW: Um, I think we should go with the latter explanation…=)
I love how he’s so incredibly “arch-conservative” that he would take a “government hand-out” not just to retire, but retire early! Welfare moocher!!
AnotherBruce
I’m happy, now I gots to go find some schadenfreude to take my happy to the next level. Any tips on who is crying the hardest?
Brachiator
@Valdivia: From a previous thread:
Not too sure. The only cases that quickly come to mind are:
Griswold v Connecticut, right to privacy, contraception, decided June 7, 1965
Loving v Virginia, interracial marriage, decided June 12, 1967
SFAW
@Jeffro:
I’ll take your word for it. I truly could not tell WTF he was trying to say.
Maybe listening to Rethugs is making me stupider.
Jeffro
@Elizabelle: Stories – even dumb ones – unfortunately can hold their own against a mountain of data. My mom had the same complaint years ago that Obamacare was causing her premiums to go up. “That never happened before?”, I asked. “It’s not just mine – two of my friends’ premiums went way up this year (2012) too!”
(sigh)
Betty Cracker
@AnotherBruce: You can always count on Glenn Beck for a puddle.
FlipYrWhig
@SFAW: I will never get the pridefulness that makes struggling people reject, or affect to reject, “handouts.” It’s just stupid. Someone wants to help you, you idiot, take it. But the entire Republican Party is predicated on that mentality. It’s their principal article of faith.
boatboy_srq
@Elizabelle: My thought for your totebagger friends is “Where would 10 million jobs be created overnight? Besides a[nother] land war in Asia, or in states busy “downsizing” their public sector apparata. Nowhere? Really? Then STFU and let POTUS work.” I’ve heard the same from well-heeled contract workers with no employer-provided benefits whatsoever. Not getting it is what they do, and what they’re paid to do.
raven
@FlipYrWhig: It’s a bulllshit dog whistle.
FlipYrWhig
@Elizabelle: Sounds like what they support is Medicaid expansion. If only that had been written into Obamacare!
But, as usual, what’s the core complaint? “I work hard and get hosed, Other People are lazy and get free goodies, so I support… hosing everyone.” That’s entirely why non-wealthy Republicans are Republicans. It’s definitional. American politics makes no sense without it. Pretty sad, isn’t it?
boatboy_srq
@Omnes Omnibus: I was imagining the look on Roberts’ face when someone showed him a few of those, and mentioned (casually) that they would be in jeopardy if KvB went the other way.
FlipYrWhig
@raven: In a lot of ways, but what’s more surprising to me is how many people ACTUALLY MEAN IT. It’s fundamental to so many people’s psyches. So. Strange.
Culture of Truth
@Jeffro: This is what Republicans were always terrified of. People would get health insurance and like it.
raven
Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) also blasted the Court, telling reporters that “a government that protects health care is one small, dangerous step away from protecting the environment.”
“The nightmare that I have long feared is now suddenly upon us,” Paul said. “Mark my words, we are on a slippery slope toward clean air and water.”
Aleta
@FlipYrWhig: Could be that people who watch, say, Fox News have been encouraged to feel deeply ashamed of themselves if they ‘go on welfare.’
Paul in KY
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: Luther could comment about Justice Scalia & his merry band of buffoons.
Edit: See JGabriel beat me to it.
raven
@FlipYrWhig: Nuthin surprises me.
chopper
@the Conster:
Tony “yo I got the Motts!” Scalia. i like the sound of that.
maybe ol’ applesauce here can hang out with ‘walnuts’ mccain.
Omnes Omnibus
@boatboy_srq: If minor league lawyers like me could see, so could Roberts. No clerk needed to pull him aside and tell him. Roberts is very conservative and I agree with him on very few issues (this being one area of agreement), but his is smart as hell and had to know the havoc that would have been unleashed in the legal system had the decision gone the other way.
Aleta
@raven: I’m putting Andy Borowitz in for a statue now that there’s openings.
SiubhanDuinne
@the Conster:
http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/It-s-broccoli-dear-I-say-it-s-spinach-and-I-say-the-hell-with-it-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i8562908_.htm
FlipYrWhig
@Aleta: “I just need a little help. Not like Those People who beg for handouts.” Like cannibalism, “welfare” is something the tribe on the other side does.
opiejeanne
@Steve in the ATL: Thank you. That’s what I thought; really bizarre comment, but I’ve seen Tea Partiers trying to tell other people that Terry Pratchett would be one of them if only he lived in the US.
SiubhanDuinne
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the legal significance of a decision having (or in this case, not having) concurring opinions?
boatboy_srq
@Omnes Omnibus: That would be enough for him to concur with the majority opinion in this case. Instead he wrote the majority opinion. That puts the stamp of “see, even one of Shrub’s SCOTUS appointees agrees” on the thing. Bit of a difference.
@raven: Even more frightening that we can imagine Teahadi public figures actually saying that.
PurpleGirl
I know I’m late to the thread. Sometimes I wish we could go back a hundred years or so, then Scalia and Alito could savor the discrimination that their Italian ancestors experienced because… well, Italian, punks, thugs, illiterate, day laborers, etc, etc. NYS began having strict gun laws back in the early 20th Century due to fears of Italian anarchists — you know, Sacco and Vanzetti.
Suzanne
WOOOOOOOHOOOOOO!
Can I just say how much I love that Tony Scalia is having such an enormous SAAAAAAAD? It’s not the best part of the ruling, but I sure am loving the hell out of it. MUAHAHAHAAAAA, suck it, you bastard.
Omnes Omnibus
@SiubhanDuinne: Thumbnail version: A lack of concurrences shows that the majority agreed on the reasoning as well as the result. In some cases, there are a variety of thought processes that end up at the same result. When that happens it is harder to determine the precedential value of the case. Also, just as an example, if four justices vote yes and sign on to an opinion and one votes yes with a separate, more restrictive opinion, one can take from this that the restrictive opinion is the controlling one.
Does this make sense?
@boatboy_srq: I am not sure where you are going with this.
Mike in NC
Confederate rags getting hauled down and ACA upheld. Not a bad week in America. Had a birthday on Tuesday and these things are just a cherry on top.
SiubhanDuinne
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yes, thanks so much, Omnes. Very clear and helpful.
Bill
@captnkurt: Those comments are entertaining in so many ways. Thanks for the link.
Omnes Omnibus
@SiubhanDuinne: Good. And you are welcome.
mdblanche
Not to diminish the importance of King v. Burwell, but the fair housing case is also a BFD. Kennedy’s done far too much shit to ever fully redeem himself, but he did redeem himself a little today.
fuckwit
@Suzanne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht2pEivC5sQ
Elizabelle
@captnkurt: Red State comments are delicious today. Thank you for the link.
What’s this about doctors moving out of the country? They discuss it several times, like it’s a thing.
ETA: A lot of the Freeper comments look like libtards trolling, to me. But how can you tell?
fuckwit
@FlipYrWhig: It’s racism. When you believe that the “handouts” are going to “those people”, then it’s easy to get an attitude about it. When you believe that the “handouts” are just you sharing your good fortune with your neighbor and fellow human being, fellow American, because we as a nation are only as strong as our weakest citizen, and because you never know when you yourself might hit hard times and need help, then it becomes a lot easier to just graciously pay your taxes, whine a bit about it, and move on with being successful and being thankful for not needing any help yourself… yet.
It’s all in how you look at it.
WaterGirl
@Patricia Kayden:
It is a day ending in Y, is it not?
Bill
@Elizabelle: This one is really precious:
There seems to be a serious belief over there that Obama has dirt on Roberts.
Brachiator
@Elizabelle:
It’s a dirty little secret. So secret that you can’t even find out about it on the Internets. Instead, what you easily find is this, from a 2014 blog post:
http://econproph.com/2014/03/31/doctors-vote-with-their-feet-and-move-to-canada/
Opponents of universal health care have to make stuff up. It’s sad.
Valdivia
@Brachiator: I really wish I had bookmarked it because off the top of my head I really don’t remember what the anniversary was.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Valdivia: SCOTUS announced overturning DOMA on 26 Jun 2013.
Lawrence v. Texas was handed down 26 Jun 2003.
Valdivia
@Valdivia: @Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: So maybe that case will be announced tomorrow and the EPA one will be Monday? At this point I have no clue. So relieved though about ACA.
catclub
@Brachiator: When was the Stonewall riot?
catclub
@Suzanne: There was a post I heard about, but did not find, that when Scalia has lost big on something, you can tell by the tantrums he pulls on other cases. They used this to predict he was losing on this and equal marriage. So far, so true.
Elizabelle
@boatboy_srq: Did I mention they work in the aerospace industry?
No filthy government spending or sucking on the government teat THERE.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@catclub: This Fortune article, perhaps?
ETA: This Slate article also talks about Nino’s tantrums.
Elizabelle
@Brachiator: They’re moving their practices to Canada. That is too rich!
Villago Delenda Est
@Elizabelle: The Near Sheriff won. That’s all they care about.
Villago Delenda Est
@Elizabelle: I don’t think they’ve been much more distressed since 6 November 2008, or 8 May 1945, or 10 April 1865.
Suzanne
@fuckwit: MUAHAHAHAAAAA. Just…. MUAHAHAHAHAAA.
Yes, I’m an asshole.
Kerry Reid
KILL THE BILL!!! OBAMA’S KATRINA!!!! (Sorry, it’s summer re-run season so that’s all I got.)
01jack
@catclub(and others):
June 28, 1969
boatboy_srq
@Omnes Omnibus: Just that I don’t think Roberts would have been so obviously deciding for the defense if he hadn’t had his nose rubbed in some past legislation the GOTea loves but would, if he decided for the plaintiffs, be jeopardized and subject to invalidation based on a King precedent. I trust Alito, Scalia and Thomas – trust them, that is, to take the most discriminatory, painful, anti-Dem position possible (mainly because TABMITWH and Democrat=Black these days); I do NOT trust Roberts precisely because of his intelligence, and because of his not-infrequent use of that intelligence to find some way to turn a decision on technicalities so that Dem priorities are scr3w3d but in such a way that challenging it is costly and time-consuming (Citizens United springs to mind). I agree with you completely that Roberts saw the writing on the wall here – where we disagree is whether that writing was sufficiently profound to encourage him to be the author of the decision. You seem to think so; I do not.
boatboy_srq
@Elizabelle: Color me unsurprised.
KithKanan
@Brachiator:
According to Wikipedia,