Five Reasons SCOTUS Won't Rule Against Obamacare

The five main issues brought up in the article below have nothing to do with anything the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court would consider in King v. Burwell in my opinion but you never know.

If there was ever an MSM article that spoke to very real and possibly quickly impending "social issues and civil unrest", this is it.

In a much-anticipated ruling in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court will decide in the coming week whether Americans who purchased private plans under the Affordable Care Act will lose subsidies because they bought insurance on a federal marketplace rather than a state-run exchange.

Whether the case comes down to Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy, there are reasons to bet against a majority of justices on the high court ruling against the Obama administration in the now famous case brought by opponents of the law who say tax credits were only intended for states that set up their own exchange.
www.forbes.com...

a reply to: Profusion

The simple reason is that the lobbyist that got it thru don't want it repealed.

We all probably have different lines of thought on why but the common theme of them all would be money.

a reply to: Profusion

What are your reflections
pertaining to this ruling
and the potential civil
unrest that you foresee?

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: Profusion

What are your reflections
pertaining to this ruling
and the potential civil
unrest that you foresee?

I started another thread that covered my "reflections pertaining to this ruling" (it's far too much to restate here):

King v. Burwell (Obamacare) and its invisible elephant in the room
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think the following article is a good synopsis of all of the different ways that King v. Burwell could affect the USA. As you can see, it's incredibly complicated and totally unpredictable at this point. I think there is definitely potential for "civil unrest" in different scenarios, just use your imagination. I see no point in continuing to discuss any of this now because as you can see in the article below, things could go in so many different ways that trying to predict it is just whistling in the dark in my opinion.

americanactionforum.org...

a reply to: Profusion

Thanks for your reply.
I will check out your previous
thread for a closer understanding.

As far as my Imagination,
you presume too much.
For I have no imagination
whatsoever.

Evening

a reply to: Profusion

Two words. Chicken sheets.

Obama knows he is sitting in the cat-bird seat on this. Impeach him if they don't toss it.

I can't help but note that none of the reasons listed in the article have anything to do with Constitutionality or legality. You know, the things the Supreme Court is supposed to make rulings on. They seem to be based on fear, money, and politics. Of course, that seems to be standard operating procedure for the US Government anymore.

Toss it and impeach anyway.

a reply to: Sunwolf

For what?

Oh,I don`t know,executive orders that contadict the constitution,maybe?

a reply to: Sunwolf

Like what?

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I can't help but note that none of the reasons listed in the article have anything to do with Constitutionality or legality. You know, the things the Supreme Court is supposed to make rulings on. They seem to be based on fear, money, and politics. Of course, that seems to be standard operating procedure for the US Government anymore.

The following quote from the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell makes it apparent to me that Justice Sonia Sotomayor isn't even trying to hide the fact that she's acting as an agent for the Obama Administration when it comes to Obamacare. Can we agree that the Forbes article probably has truth to it at least when it comes to the four liberal Justices on the Supreme Court? In fact, I think the situation is even worse than what the Forbes article claims.

I think the following quote makes it clear that at the very least Justice Sotomayor will not rule against Obamacare because she is completely biased and seemingly beholden to protecting Obamacare. As I wrote in another thread:

If America really wanted true justice, all nine Supreme Court Justices would be political independents owing allegiance to no political party. Then we would have a chance at true justice. But, that's just another thing that could never be allowed to happen in the current system that exists.

14  JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  Could I follow up on
15 something the General ended with, which ­­ and Justice
16 Kennedy referred to, which is the need to read subsidies
17 limited.  But so is ­­ in a limited way.  But so is the
18 need to ensure that exemptions from tax liability are
19 read in a limited way.  And under your reading, we're
20 giving more exemptions to employers not to provide
21 insurance, more exemptions to States and others or to
22 individuals, how ­­ how does that work?  I mean, you've
23 got two competing 
­­www.supremecourt.gov...