No, there are no "fair market minus advertising costs". If the farmer can sell his crop to Krogers for $100,000, then $100,000 is what the government must pay if they want his raisins. There is no "collective voting" anymore because the Supreme Court just stripped the raisin board of the power to seize a farmer's crop, which they ruled was a "taking". THEY STRUCK IT DOWN. READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
There's a pretty decent chance that Roberts and/or Kennedy decide to punt on the case, finding that it should be tossed for lack of standing because this is the quality of the plaintiffs, leaving the Court without a majority opinion and leaving the subsidies intact without finding in the governments' favor. Wouldn't that be lovely.
You didn't read the ruling, or even the link you posted, did you? The court ruled nothing even remotely similar to what you say here.
If there is one constituency, one group anywhere in this country with a clear claim on gubbermint largesse, it's veterans. You put on that uniform, you are literally offering up your life in service of your country. End of line.
Yep, it was never a real claim of substance and relied on one type in a bill thousands of pages long. Shit, the ones who would have been really fucked if this meritless suit had won would have been red states. All Obama had to do is refuse to change anything and those states either had to set up their own states or have their own state medical systems crash because of Republicans.
7, actually, and not typos (as those have been spelled out elsewhere), but rather "It doesn't mean what it says"s. Why is that such a bad outcome? As the dissent notes, one of the aims of the act was to cajole the states into participating in the program.
Except the court disagreed with your lie because the over all context makes it clear what the original intent was. Isn't it funny how you conservatives harp on original intent to get out of doing something a clear reading of what is written would mean yet in this case you are flip flopping and claiming original intent doesn't matter? Hypocrite much?
Original intent in the CONSTITUTION!. Not in some poorly written piece of legislation meant as the legacy troll of a bad president.
They apply it to all laws not just the constitution, so, no you are just factually wrong. Also, they are absolutely hypocrites for demanding their, often unfounded, interpritation of what people 200 years ago wanted vs what it actually says then flip flopping on that now. Fortunately, six justices were honest enough to see through the lies and take the context into account. Sadly, this means we still have three partisan hack shit birds who are unfit to wear the robes.
Quoting Dayton's racist shit. "Novelty President" because a blackman just is incapable of winning on his own merits. Oh, wait, he did, twice, and as usual Dayton is just a racist shit bird.
Oh come on Dinner. You know Barack Obama would've never been nominated much less elected if he has not been black. That is so obvious why not just admit it.
No, I don't know that. No honest person does. I admit the Republicans were so monumentally incompetent in office no sane person would vote for their candidate but Obama was simply a better candidate than his competition. Your attempts to deminish his win based upon racial bigotry has been noted.
I don't have to defend my criticism of Barack Obama. Naturally you assume it is racist to say he was elected just because he was black. Once again, name any other nominee for president in the 20th century whose background before being nominated to be president is basically "four years in the U.S. Senate"
Mitt Romney had "basically 4 years as a governor," whereas Obama actually had a much longer legislative career than 4 years. He had been a state legislator for many years before becoming a federal senator.
Someone wants to get back at the Supreme Court... House bill would force the Supreme Court to enroll in ObamaCare A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare. Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges. “As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said. “That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said. Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges. “By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added. His move follows the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday morning that upheld the subsidies under ObamaCare that are provided by the government to offset the cost of buying insurance. The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said consumers purchasing health insurance from the federal exchange in roughly 34 states could continue to do so. The ruling in King v. Burwell has spurred anger on the right, with conservatives questioning the logic of the decision. “They deserve an Olympic medal for the legal gymnastics,” Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, told The Hill. Roberts argued in his decision that eliminating subsidies would have pulled state healthcare markets into a death spiral. That chain of effects, he added, was not consistent with ObamaCare’s intent. “The argument that the phrase ‘established by the State’ would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive,” he wrote. Justice Antonin Scalia strongly criticized that interpretation in his dissent. “We should start by calling this law SCOTUScare,” he wrote, lambasting Roberts for the ObamaCare decision in 2012 declaring the law’s mandate that people buy insurance constitutional. President Obama celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement from the Rose Garden. “After multiple challenges before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” he said.
Isn't it funny how the racist Dayton ignores 12 years in the state government? 16 years total on government and Dayton claims he is inexperienced because Dayton is a racist piece of shit. Thus he simply must be a novelty president with no merit even though the people picked him twice. Fuck you. Fuck you right up the ass.
Bullshit. Not all states have part time do nothing legislatures like Arkansas. Illinois is a high population, complex place. Don't use your personal lens to bias the meaning of his experience there. High population state governments have more in common with national governments than they do with tiny shithole state governments.
Really gul. How much do state senators in Illinois get paid annually? Also interestingly you just can't seem to get past insulting my state can you.
And you didn't answer my question about how much State Senators are paid in Illinois. I asked it because that answer tells you just how serious the position is considered to be in that state. And when you say "tiny shithole" in regards to a state government, I think most reasonable people would consider that insulting.
Marriage ruling is in. Bans are overturned. States must recognize out of state marriages as well as grant licenses.
I forgot that you don't know how to google. In Illinois, they are paid about $67,000 per year. Contrast that to Arkansas, where it is $15,000.
