Barry Bluntly Challenges the Supreme Court

[libertybele]

Wow. I am furious. Who in the hell does this guy think he is? Why would he talk about this at the G-7 Summit? A ruling against subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law?  According to whom?  Barry the Constitutionalist or Barry the dictator??  I'm waiting for him to order an E.O. overriding the supreme court.  Last time I checked the U.S. Supreme Court was the LAW of the land and they have every right to be involved.  I see it as he his telling them that they need to rule in his favor or else.   It's crap and comments like this that really make me wonder if we're going to make it to the next presidential election and finally be rid of this narcissistic imbecile .

Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case, in blunt challenge

President Obama on Monday bluntly challenged the Supreme Court over a pending ruling on the validity of ObamaCare subsidies, saying the court shouldn't even have taken up the case -- and warning that a decision striking down subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law.

The president and his administration's legal team for months have fought the Affordable Care Act court challenge, which is over whether people who enrolled through the federal HealthCare.gov are entitled to subsidies.

But the president's comments on Monday, during a press conference on the sidelines of the G-7 summit in Germany, were perhaps his toughest to date. He strongly suggested the court would be running afoul of established legal guidance if it rules against the administration, and took the rare step of saying the court should have stayed out of this fight...


...He said it's safe to "assume" the court will do what most legal scholars expect and "play it straight." Obama said it has been well-documented that Congress never intended to exclude people who went through the federal exchange.

To rule the other way, the president said, would be a "contorted reading of the statute" and a "twisted interpretation."...

"It's a bad idea," Obama said....

The president went on to mount a robust defense of the law itself, saying "none" of the alleged "horrors" associated with ObamaCare have "come to pass."    

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/08/obama-says-supreme-court-should-never-have-taken-up-health-law-case-in-blunt/

[Belle]

Never to be proven, but was it possible O got to Roberts on the first round of challenges to Obamacare, when Roberts re-wrote legislation (mandate wasn't a mandate, it was a tax) so government controlled health care would remain?

Obama is so empowered, has such a massive ego, that he believes he has the right to say or do anything.  He has many allies, including liberal republicans, which is the majority of our Congress.

"Barry the Constitutionalist"....well, my opinion, progressives study the Constitution alright.  But to destroy this revered document, one must study it first.

I'll stand by my prediction that Roberts once again will come to the rescue, & be pleased if he doesn't.  Then it'll be in the rinos laps.

[libertybele]

Never to be proven, but was it possible O got to Roberts on the first round of challenges to Obamacare, when Roberts re-wrote legislation (mandate wasn't a mandate, it was a tax) so government controlled health care would remain?

Obama is so empowered, has such a massive ego, that he believes he has the right to say or do anything.  He has many allies, including liberal republicans, which is the majority of our Congress.

"Barry the Constitutionalist"....well, my opinion, progressives study the Constitution alright.  But to destroy this revered document, one must study it first.

I'll stand by my prediction that Roberts once again will come to the rescue, & be pleased if he doesn't.  Then it'll be in the rinos laps.

Something happened to Roberts ... or perhaps he wasn't the conservative that "W" though he appointed.  I'm not so sure how they can rule "for" the subsidies because at issue is a line in the law stipulating that subsidies are available to those who sign up for coverage "through an exchange established by the state." But a majority of states opted not to set up their own exchanges and instead chose to rely on the federal government. 

The judges are supposed to interpret the law, not read into the law and not rewrite the law.  Barrycare is a mess.  In the event that the court rules against Barry ... what about all the people who were penalized on their tax return for not complying with this mandate?  What about all the people who used the subsidies?

The largest number of people who stand to lose their healthcare is in the State of Florida.  I don't know a whole lot about the qualifications needed to sign up for Barrycare; but with Florida being a border state and standing the most to lose ... I can't help but wonder how many illegals are covered by Barrycare. 

If Barrycare subsidies are upheld the DEMS come out heroes.  If they rule against Barrycare the "rich" Republicans will look like they are trying to take for those less unfortunate and the DEMS will still be the good guys to many....BUT it will restore some faith in the Republican base.

[Big Dog]

'That's a nice Supreme Court you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.'

[RayRaytheSBS]

'That's a nice Supreme Court you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.'

That's exactly right Big Dog, Hi 5.

The president is basically telling the supreme court, the arm of government charged with upholding the law, or saying it is against the law, to back off. And he did it in a VERY public venue.

An example of corruption at it's finest. But also an example of desperation in my view. Barry KNOWS his signature piece is sucking... And sucking hard core. The LAST thing he wants is the courts to come in and dismantle anything that might effect his 'legacy'.

This idiot is worrying more about his 'legacy' than about being a leader. And when presidents do that, the people suffer.

[docstew]

Something happened to Roberts ... or perhaps he wasn't the conservative that "W" though he appointed. I'm not so sure how they can rule "for" the subsidies because at issue is a line in the law stipulating that subsidies are available to those who sign up for coverage "through an exchange established by the state." But a majority of states opted not to set up their own exchanges and instead chose to rely on the federal government. 

The judges are supposed to interpret the law, not read into the law and not rewrite the law.  Barrycare is a mess.  In the event that the court rules against Barry ... what about all the people who were penalized on their tax return for not complying with this mandate?  What about all the people who used the subsidies?

The largest number of people who stand to lose their healthcare is in the State of Florida.  I don't know a whole lot about the qualifications needed to sign up for Barrycare; but with Florida being a border state and standing the most to lose ... I can't help but wonder how many illegals are covered by Barrycare. 

If Barrycare subsidies are upheld the DEMS come out heroes.  If they rule against Barrycare the "rich" Republicans will look like they are trying to take for those less unfortunate and the DEMS will still be the good guys to many....BUT it will restore some faith in the Republican base.

All the plaintiffs had to do to destroy Barry's theory (specifically, that the words "established by the state" mean any level of gov't) was show where there was any difference made between state gov't responsibilities and fed gov't responsibilities. If they made that differentiation in one location, it could logically be held to hold throughout.

[libertybele]

It will be interesting to see what happens.  As of right now, Obama obviously has no plans should the Supreme Court rule against him.  Meanwhile, McConnell opened his mouth to say that the Republicans have a plan, but Ryan has commented that there is no quick fix. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/10/hhs-to-congress-on-obamacare-court-ruling-its-your-problem/

[docstew]

They shouldn't do ANY fix, quick or otherwise. Just play video of Jonathan Gruber saying "We did it that way intentionally to force states to join up" over and over, and say "I'm sorry you lost your subsidies, but this is what the Democrats WANTED."

The best way to repeal a bad law is to enforce it to the letter.

[big steve]

Odumbo is illegal, lying scum!  Some of his hostilities to the SC may come back to bite him in the gluteus when he's out of office!

[libertybele]

Odumbo is illegal, lying scum!  Some of his hostilities to the SC may come back to bite him in the gluteus when he's out of office!

They, may.  It all depends on who takes office in 2016.  Perhaps if we get a conservative in office, entities like Judicial Watch just might attempt to try him as a civilian and bring him up on criminal charges.  Attempting to charge him now would be taking a risk should a DEM or RINO take office and have the ability to pardon him.  Unfortunately with the "racist" climate that has been created by this administration, a lot of people may see that going after him once he leaves office though, may see it as nothing more than going after him because he's black.  One of the reasons that was pointed out to me as to why they haven't attempted to impeach him.

[Big Dog]

A few points of clarification:

Perhaps if we get a conservative in office, entities like Judicial Watch just might attempt to try him as a civilian and bring him up on criminal charges.

Criminal charges are not filed or prosecuted by private organizations or individuals. The US Department of Justice files, or "brings up", federal charges. Judicial Watch files lawsuits and FOIA requests.

We laugh at that guy, "Laser" Hass, over at the DUmp when he tries to prosecute political figures as the self-appointed "private attorney general". Please don't be that guy.

Attempting to charge him now would be taking a risk should a DEM or RINO take office and have the ability to pardon him.

See above.

Unfortunately with the "racist" climate that has been created by this administration, a lot of people may see that going after him once he leaves office though, may see it as nothing more than going after him because he's black.  One of the reasons that was pointed out to me as to why they haven't attempted to impeach him.

Name three Federal statutes which King Putt has violated, to the legal standard necessary for the US Justice  Department to file charges. If you can't name three, then name one.

We do not approve of King Putt's Minister of Just Us using the legal system to persecute conservatives, Christians, and gun owners; and we laugh at the DUmbshit advocacy for prosecutions of W, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, skeptics about the climate change scam, or people who dare to speak ill of The  Lightbringer. Again, don't be that guy.

[libertybele]

A few points of clarification:

Criminal charges are not filed or prosecuted by private organizations or individuals. The US Department of Justice files, or "brings up", federal charges. Judicial Watch files lawsuits and FOIA requests.

We laugh at that guy, "Laser" Hass, over at the DUmp when he tries to prosecute political figures as the self-appointed "private attorney general". Please don't be that guy.

See above.

Name three Federal statutes which King Putt has violated, to the legal standard necessary for the US Justice  Department to file charges. If you can't name three, then name one.

We do not approve of King Putt's Minister of Just Us using the legal system to persecute conservatives, Christians, and gun owners; and we laugh at the DUmbshit advocacy for prosecutions of W, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, skeptics about the climate change scam, or people who dare to speak ill of The  Lightbringer. Again, don't be that guy.

I understand the point you are trying to make, and perhaps I am wrong, but in the case of impeaching a president he would have to be guilty of "treason", "bribery", "high crimes (federal statutes) or "misdemeanors".  #1 - Illegally engaging in a war with Libya.  #2 Illegally releasing Taliban without 30 day notification to Congress.  #3 aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States - Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution; i.e., Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes, I understand that currently Judicial Watch has sued to obtain information, but could they not file a civil suit against Barry once he left office?

[thundley4]

Name three Federal statutes which King Putt has violated, to the legal standard necessary for the US Justice  Department to file charges. If you can't name three, then name one.

How about just one big violation failure to uphold his oath of office?

[Big Dog]

I understand the point you are trying to make, and perhaps I am wrong, but in the case of impeaching a president he would have to be guilty of "treason", "bribery", "high crimes (federal statutes) or "misdemeanors".

You're moving the goalposts, libertybele. You weren't talking about impeachment before. Your post said that you wanted an undefined "we" to file criminal charges against King Putt while he is still in office, but was afraid he would be pardoned if the next president is a Dem or RINO.

#1 - Illegally engaging in a war with Libya.  #2 Illegally releasing Taliban without 30 day notification to Congress.  #3 aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States - Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution; i.e., Muslim Brotherhood.

#1: The closest you can get to "illegal" about King Putt's attack on Libya is that it violated the War Powers Act of 1973. The War Powers Act has no penalty provision. It's not a criminal law, so no one, including the president, can be prosecuted for violating it. The only legal recourse is impeachment. We (to use the same pronoun you did earlier) don't impeach. Congress does that, they ain't we, and they ain't doing it.

#2. The law requiring the President to notify Congress prior to releasing detainees has no penalty provision. No penalty provision, no crime. See #1.

#3. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a nation, Congress has not declared war on the Muslim Brotherhood, nor has the Muslim Brotherhood otherwise been determined to be "enemies of the United States" by the US government; so for the purpose of defining treason, that won't work.

Yes, I understand that currently Judicial Watch has sued to obtain information, but could they not file a civil suit against Barry once he left office?

You didn't say anything about a suit. You said, and I quote, "Judicial Watch just might attempt to try him as a civilian and bring him up on criminal charges." That is "Laser" Hass territory, the home turf of the guy who wears his underwear outside his pants. Don't be that guy.

As to whether Judicial Watch sues King Putt after he leaves office, it really doesn't matter.

[Big Dog]

How about just one big violation failure to uphold his oath of office?

The remedy for that is impeachment. The cowards and ****s in Congress don't share our enthusiasm to be rid of the jug-eared tyrant.

[thundley4]

The remedy for that is impeachment. The cowards and ****s in Congress don't share our enthusiasm to be rid of the jug-eared tyrant.

Barry is protected by the threat of black violence if he is impeached.  Did I say threat of violence?  It's almost a guarantee.

[obumazombie]

By every measure, owebumacare is a complete failure...

We haven’t heard much about Obamacare from the media lately (with the exception of Paul Krugman, who slips a paragraph into every other column — regardless of topic — to tell us how well it’s working).
It’s as if both supporters and opponents of the health-care law are holding their collective breaths as they wait for the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide any day now whether the law will be able to survive in its current form.


Obamacare’s opponents have mostly been caucusing behind closed doors trying to decide whether and when to offer an alternative
— and how much to offer
— should the Court require the law to be implemented as written
— that is, without subsidies on federally run exchanges.


The law’s advocates, meanwhile, may have been left speechless by the news that Obamacare has tied an all-time low for public support, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.
Just 39 percent of registered voters back the law, tying an all-time low last reached in April 2012.
Fifty-four percent oppose it, and while that’s not a record, it represents a six-point increase in opposition over the past year.



Or maybe the law’s supporters simply have little response to the ongoing spate of news suggesting that, Krugman notwithstanding, the law is still not working very well.
For example, insurance companies have begun submitting their requests for rate increases for 2016, and those requests suggest that premiums could skyrocket next year.
Already we’ve seen requests for increases for individual plans as high as 64.8 percent in Texas, 61 percent in Pennsylvania, 51.6 percent in New Mexico, 36.3 percent in Tennessee, 30.4 percent in Maryland, 25 percent in Oregon, and 19.9 percent in Washington.

Those increases would come on top of premium increases last year that were 24.4 percent above what they would have been without Obamacare, according to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.
At the same time, deductibles for the cheapest Obamacare plans now average about $5,180 for individuals and $10,500 for families.


In fairness, those rate-hike requests are just that — requests.
State regulators are likely to trim them back, significantly in some cases.

And other insurers in those states may be seeking smaller increases.
We haven’t seen any data weighting increases by the number of people covered, so we should be careful about overstating the impact.

In addition, many people are insulated from the true cost by the law’s subsidies, which is what makes the upcoming Court decision so important.
Still, to recall P. J. O’Rourke’s famous dictum, if we thought health insurance was expensive before, look at it now that it is free.


New evidence also suggests that Obamacare is struggling to meet its goals for covering the uninsured.
According to a report in Investor’s Business Daily, the Obama administration estimates that roughly 10.2 million people have enrolled in Obamacare plans and paid at least one month’s premium.
This meets the White House’s revised sign-up goal announced late last year, though it falls below the Congressional Budget Office’s earlier projections.

The CBO had originally projected some 12 million sign-ups through 2015, later lowering that estimate to 11 million.
So, while we should recognize that Obamacare has significantly increased coverage, there clearly is a long way to go.


A very long way, in fact.
The CBO still hopes for 21 million enrollees next year, which would mean more than doubling current sign-up levels.
Anyone see that happening?
But failure to meet those numbers would mean that Obamacare would continue to flirt with the possibility of an adverse-selection “death spiral,” which could take down the entire insurance market.

Already, insurance companies are warning that exchange enrollment is weighted too heavily toward sicker and older patients.
And the Republican Congress is unlikely to renew bailouts designed to protect insurance companies from such adverse selection.



Of course, these numbers do not count the nearly 7 million people who signed up for Medicaid because of Obamacare’s expansion of the program.
But given the increasing evidence that Medicaid provides dubious value in terms of health outcomes, how this will affect federal and state budgets remains an open question.


To cite just one example, getting poor people enrolled in Medicaid was supposed to reduce the strain on overburdened emergency rooms, by steering patients toward primary and preventive care.
But the low physician-reimbursement rates under Medicaid mean that few physicians will treat Medicaid patients. As a result, emergency-room visits have actually increased under Obamacare.


Very soon the Supreme Court will rule on Obamacare’s subsidies.
But for the law as a whole, the verdict is already in.
By almost any measure, Obamacare is a failure.

full article...

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/michael-d-tanner/verdict-already-almost-any-measure-obamacare-failure

[libertybele]

It boggles my mind how the liberal mental midgets couldn't see that this would be nothing more than another one of Barry's colossal failures. 

[Big Dog]

It boggles my mind how the liberal mental midgets couldn't see that this would be nothing more than another one of Barry's colossal failures. 

I gave you a high five for staying in the discussion with me. I'm tough, but I'm fair.