Lol. Maybe you should read his opinion. Or just read Robert's Majority Opinion where he uses Scalia's own words in prior cases to make his point against Scalia. Maybe then you will have a better "understanding" of Scalia.
I haven't read the full opinion yet, but for those of you blasting Scalia you should understand that he has a history of being a strict constructionist and a real ball buster when it comes to constitutional/statutory interpretation. Most of his opinions advocate for following long standing canons of statutory/constitutional construction, with a very heavy emphasis on the textual canons. Once you understand that his opinions are almost entirely predictable.
It was clearly written that way on purpose to incentivize evil backwards conservative states to set up exchanges. I'm pretty sure I read here or elsewhere some compassionate democrat saying that the citizens of mouthbreather states deserved not to have subsidies because they voted for awful conservatives.
The only time context would matter would be if the wording were difficult and it wasn't. Still, I can't help but wonder if all of these problems could have been avoided if we had read it before we passed it like Obama said we would.
I'm quite concerned that your intentions only matter when you're a giant corporation or the government.
That's weird since Massachusetts already had Romneycare, which we're told is the same thing, and good pre-'Bama coverage levels. So there shouldn't have been a huge influx of new patients. Is there something else depressing the available number of physicians, some unique tax or especially high insurance costs making the place an undesirable locale to set up shop?
You would think that with the thousands upon thousands of pages of the law and associated regulations, there would be zero leeway as to the actual intent. Isn't Congress elected to pass laws, not intents of laws?
Roberts pointed out that the intent of the law is quite clear. Only those with intent to deceive ever offered otherwise.
*SIGH*
As expected, you completely missed the point - that courts *had to* determine the intent of the law, because it was not spelled out properly.
I guess that's what happens when you get industries to write your laws instead of the people that are elected to do so.
It was clearly written that way on purpose to incentivize evil backwards conservative states to set up exchanges. I'm pretty sure I read here or elsewhere some compassionate democrat saying that the citizens of mouthbreather states deserved not to have subsidies because they voted for awful conservatives.
The only time context would matter would be if the wording were difficult and it wasn't. Still, I can't help but wonder if all of these problems could have been avoided if we had read it before we passed it like Obama said we would.
I'm quite concerned that your intentions only matter when you're a giant corporation or the government.
*SIGH*
As expected, you completely missed the point - that courts *had to* determine the intent of the law, because it was not spelled out properly.
I guess that's what happens when you get industries to write your laws instead of the people that are elected to do so.
No. It's what happens when human beings undertake complex tasks in a short period of time.
The people who actually write things, are people. They are not infallible...
Not infallible?
Hire consultants to write a bill purposely designed to fool voters. Invite insurance company lobbyists to help write the bill. Lie to the voters about what is in the bill. Don't let the voters even see the bill until after it is passed by Congress.
Then complain because the voters don't trust the politicians?
LOL
Uno
Not infallible?
Hire consultants to write a bill purposely designed to fool voters. Invite insurance company lobbyists to help write the bill. Lie to the voters about what is in the bill. Don't let the voters even see the bill until after it is passed by Congress.
Then complain because the voters don't trust the politicians?
LOL
Uno
How does it hurt new college grads since they can stay on parents insurance till age 26?Its going to death spiral anyway.
<-- This is me not caring since I now have employer insurance. But let me tell you... the individual market is basically dead.
And for all the older people with nice plans who think they did a good thing supporting obamacare... wait for the cadillac tax .
The ACA is not one size fits all. Guess who it fucks over? Hmm lets see. Temp workers. New college grads. Older Atypical college students who try to work while in college. People going back to college. People changing careers. etc. etc.
Its going to death spiral anyway.
<-- This is me not caring since I now have employer insurance. But let me tell you... the individual market is basically dead.
And for all the older people with nice plans who think they did a good thing supporting obamacare... wait for the cadillac tax .
The ACA is not one size fits all. Guess who it fucks over? Hmm lets see. Temp workers. New college grads. Older Atypical college students who try to work while in college. People going back to college. People changing careers. etc. etc.
Its going to death spiral anyway.
<-- This is me not caring since I now have employer insurance. But let me tell you... the individual market is basically dead.
And for all the older people with nice plans who think they did a good thing supporting obamacare... wait for the cadillac tax .
The ACA is not one size fits all. Guess who it fucks over? Hmm lets see. Temp workers. New college grads. Older Atypical college students who try to work while in college. People going back to college. People changing careers. etc. etc.
a timetable would be nice. Your same talking points were predicted c. 2012, but have yet to occur...just as the spiraling costs were predicted. Yet, costs are stabilizing, savings are predicted at greater and greater rates year to year.
I'm only curious when the first apocalyptic prediction will ever come to pass, rather than fall flat in the face of reality, as has only been the case to this point.
I mean, some evidence or at least an argument backed by numbers would be interesting to see.
....do you think this will happen around the same time all that wealth we gleefully shoved to the top over the last 30 years finally starts trickling down to us peons?
As Roberts points out & as you apparently refuse to comprehend, Congress *obviously* did not intend to destroy their own creation. That is the greater context, making picayune quibbling over the interpretation of a particular passage specious & lame.
You're right, the wording wasn't difficult.
It wasn't congress' creation, and I don't see how it working as written would destroy it. I'm not sure why so many people think people are elected to congress to throw feces at the wall and see what sticks then fix the problems with the legislation that they passed immediately after. The passage was written the way it was for a reason, it had to be edited after the fact because it didn't work as intended.
On the topic of intentions, AT&T "intended" for their website to be secure when it had... no security what-so-ever. So when weev programmatically iterated through a bunch of iDevice registrations and embarrassed them... this is how it turned out for weev. Luckily for weev, they did it wrong and his conviction was overturned. Now, if we add an "intentions exemption" for every act of foolishness perpetrated by an agent of government it won't end well. That's what the rule of law is about, it used to be a big deal.
State means state, glad we could work that out.
State means state, glad we could work that out.
What's important is that it doesn't implode until after January of 2017. If that means more postponements or delays through executive fiat, then that's what will be done.Its going to death spiral anyway.
<-- This is me not caring since I now have employer insurance. But let me tell you... the individual market is basically dead.
And for all the older people with nice plans who think they did a good thing supporting obamacare... wait for the cadillac tax .
The ACA is not one size fits all. Guess who it fucks over? Hmm lets see. Temp workers. New college grads. Older Atypical college students who try to work while in college. People going back to college. People changing careers. etc. etc.
What's concerning is the growing number of useful idiots that choose to believe the systemic lying that is the cornerstone of this administration as well as the lies coming out of the mouth of Obama himself. Rather than deal with reality, these people choose to believe what any rational person easily recognizes to be untrue. I just don't see this ending well.When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obamacare Thursday, President Barack Obama spoke of the time he met a mom whose son was saved thanks to the law. But when asked to explain the story, the White House went silent.
And theyve told me that it has changed their lives for the better, the president declared. Ive had moms come up and say, my son was able to see a doctor and get diagnosed, and catch a tumor early, and hes alive today because of this law. This law is working. And its going to keep doing just that.
After the detailed aside was made, The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to White House press secretary Josh Earnest directly asking for some additional details including the context of the conversation and what were the circumstances leading to the president meeting the mother.
Despite several requests over two days, the White House has refused to substantiate the story.
It wasn't congress' creation, and I don't see how it working as written would destroy it. I'm not sure why so many people think people are elected to congress to throw feces at the wall and see what sticks then fix the problems with the legislation that they passed immediately after. The passage was written the way it was for a reason, it had to be edited after the fact because it didn't work as intended.
On the topic of intentions, AT&T "intended" for their website to be secure when it had... no security what-so-ever. So when weev programmatically iterated through a bunch of iDevice registrations and embarrassed them... this is how it turned out for weev. Luckily for weev, they did it wrong and his conviction was overturned. Now, if we add an "intentions exemption" for every act of foolishness perpetrated by an agent of government it won't end well. That's what the rule of law is about, it used to be a big deal.
State means state, glad we could work that out.
*SIGH*
As expected, you completely missed the point - that courts *had to* determine the intent of the law, because it was not spelled out properly.
I guess that's what happens when you get industries to write your laws instead of the people that are elected to do so.