1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court watch

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by JayFarrar, Jun 25, 2015.

  1. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    Jiggery-pokery!
     
  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Except we did. The court today ruled that "the state" now means "the state and the federal government."

    On the bright side, I suppose that means that since there is a federal death penalty that now all states have to have a death penalty.
     
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    You might even say the court enacted a tariff. I expect those 30 states to secede in protest of tariffs.
     
    Tarheel316 and Spartan Squad like this.
  4. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I'm not familiar with the decision or the issues, but we frequently use "the state" to mean "the government" at my shop.
     
  5. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I'm a bit surprised at the decision ... not that it went one way (or the other) but that it wasn't 5-4. There were pretty credible arguments both for and against.
     
  6. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Obviously.

    You might want to look up the difference between a state and the federal government. It's not that difficult. At least it shouldn't be for a lawyer.
     
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I understand the difference between a state and federal government. But "the state" is often used as a catch-all term that refers to government, federal, state, or local.
     
  8. Big Circus

    Big Circus Well-Known Member

    I'm with Tony. It's asinine that we're handing over control of our health care system to Michael Ian Black and the "I wanna dip my balls in it" guy. Thanks, Obama!
     
    Donny in his element likes this.
  9. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    The law defined "state" as one of the 50 plus D.C.

    So if you took the wording and didn't put it into context or the intent of the law, then it was a slam dunk for ACA to fail.

    The majority of justices, however, put things into context and judged the law on the intent of the Congress that passed it.

    It was really a win for both sides. Obama and the Dems keep the law for at least 19 more months, while the GOP can campaign against it without offering an alternative to keep people insured.

    While it would have been fun to watch a faction fight on the GOP side, it was really in the best interests of the country to keep the law as it is.

    Seems pretty clear the Supremes saw it the same way.
     
  10. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits … I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges, and that they’ll do it.” -- Jonathan Gruber, 2012.

    I guess the guy who wrote the law is clueless about what's in it.
     
  11. LanceyHoward

    LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

    Kennedy asked a question in the oral arguments that indicated he had some reservations about the arguments to overturn Obamacare.

    How will Kennedy rule on Obamacare - Business Insider

    Kennedy's question indicated he was sympathetic to the argument that overturning Obamacare would actually violate states rights.
     
  12. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    As far as I can tell, it was the clause in the law saying the state (meaning one of the 50) would create the exchange, and if not, the feds would create "such exchange," meaning the exact same exchange that would've been created otherwise. The tax credits, therefore, could not be given in one and not the other.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page