Supreme Court ‘Bitterly Divided’ Over Obamacare

The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Wednesday as it began hearing arguments on the fate of Obamacare.

Justices seemed “bitterly divided” during “heated” arguments over the law, reported The New York Times. If they rule that the federal subsidies the Internal Revenue Service has doled out for Obamacare plans are illegal, millions of people would no longer be able to afford their plans, and the entire law would be crippled.

The four liberal justices indicated strong support for the Obama administration’s position, in opposition to the most conservative members of the court. Those four will likely have to win over either Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who didn’t say much, or Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said he’s not comfortable with the administration’s position.

The law states that only people who buy Obamacare “though an Exchange established by the state,” are eligible for subsidies, but the IRS has subsidized plans for millions of people who purchased them through the federal exchange.

read more:

Views: 471

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hey do not worry the issue is settled and the fix is in and roberts will find a way to support obama just like he did before.  Obama has something on roberts because he no longer conservative but rather a liberal progressive democrat.

Hey Remember Mr. Gruber that's why they wrote the law to be deceptive so they could sneak it by , Mr. Gruber they would rather lie to the American people then take a chance of not getting the bill passed, if this deception and outright lie's to the American people that by it self should make the law null and void !

Divided? How can the number nine be divided? Anybody?

The Supreme Courts division over this OBVIOUS abuse of our Constitution is amazing... it goes to show that our legal minds are all corrupted.  There should be a unified rejection of Obama Care as unconstitutional on its face... not in need of any long winded briefs or oral arguments.

Ronald        You are right on.  How did we get in this fix?  By electing presidents who have an agenda that is not "for the people" because we are stupid sheep?.........then these presidents appoint supreme court justices (with the approval of the corrupt congress)  that are corrupt.  You might ask how could we have corrupt supreme court justices? Aren't they supposed to know what the constitution says?  Sure they know what it says, they just don't give a feces.

How did we get in this fix?

in large part by natural consequences of the 17th amendment. SCOTUS lost it's respect for the states' rightful role in the design by the senators no longer screening potential justices' viewpoint of states' rightful role, due to no longer representing their state's legislature.

By electing and promoting IMMORAL men and women to high office... by permitting the ungodly to have access to our highest offices corruption naturally followed... and continues to erode our Constitutional liberties.

Congress indeed is failing to reject those individuals nominated by Presidents who are not qualified or have moral and ethical issues. Character and not just any character matters, it is the most important issue in selecting individuals for key government positions. 

Failure to reign in Judicial activism ... too, impeach any federal judge on the first offense or abuse of power.  Failure to limit the Jurisdiction of Federal District Judges to their Constitutional roll... they don't have the Constitutional Jurisdiction to hear ANY CASES where a State is a party.  Only the US Supreme Court has constitutional jurisdiction to here cases where a State is involved.  No Federal District Court Judge has the Constitutional authority to rule on or hear any case where a State is a Party ... See; Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

Congress must put an immidiate and permanent halt to Federal District Courts or any inferrior Federal Court ruling on cases where a State is Party.  A single unelected judge doesn't have the Constitutional power to enjoin or dismiss any State's civil, criminal, constitutional law, or any of its functions... only the US Supreme Court has that Constitutional power.  No federal statute or act may supersede or modify the Constitution. Hence any act of congress may not grant inferior courts the jurisdictional power to hear cases involving a State.  

If the issue is liberal, raise taxes, and gives something away free especially to illegals or those on welfare, the US Supreme Court will support it. What you are seeing now is a dog and pony show, leaving the ignorant public with the idea they are really struggling with fairness. Remember the Justices have a job for life, cannot be over-ruled except  by a revolution, and they all dream of dying on the court. Look up the History of Justice Warren Douglas. Despite a heart attack that left him wheel chair bound, head tipped over and drooling, could not speak and be understood, he refused to resign. 

If recent history tells us anything, the conservative chief justices will cave to the recent liberal Obama appointee's.

Someone want to remind these alleged "justices" that it's about the LAW not politics.  Quislings everywhere in our government.

Democrat Presidents appoint Liberal/Marxist judges. They do not support citizens rights over Federal control of them! Dem voters, you have destroyed your country and our freedoms!

I contacted my  Senator casey, and his office send me a five paragraph reply making obmama care looking like it is a lifesaver for the poor unfortunate Americans, who are victims of this BIG MEAN INSURANCE COMPANIES. When it is the demogoons  who are responsible for the jobs going overseas because of their insane restrictive controlling laws about like the environment to  name one.  




Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Joe Biden On Violence Against Women:   We Have To Keep ‘Punching At It, And Punching At It, And Punching At It’

 The audience laughed as he said this.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said that America needs to be “punching” back to combat violence against women during Wednesday’s Democratic debate.

Biden was asked if he would tackle specific issues regarding the #MeToo movement at the beginning of his presidency, if he were to be elected. The former vice president previously sponsored the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which aimed to protect victims of domestic violence.

The presidential candidate responded to the question about assaulting women by using the phrase “punching” repeatedly, apparently not thinking about the implications of using such a word.

“No man has a right to raise a hand to a woman in anger other than in self-defense, and that rarely ever occurs,” Biden said. “So we have to just change the culture, period, and keep punching at it and punching at it and punching at it. No, I really mean it.”

A few people laughed in the audience as he said this.

Biden added that it is important to pass the Violence Against Women Act, which has passed in the House and held up in the Senate. The former Vice President also suggested that America has to “fundamentally change the culture” of how women are treated, noting that it is “everyone’s responsibility.”

“It’s a gigantic issue, and we have to make it clear from the top, from the president on down that we will not tolerate it,” Biden said. “We will not tolerate this culture.”

Tucker's big takeaways from the Trump impeachment saga

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service