I’ll be honest, heading into this decision I had no clue how the court was going to rule. This had been potentially the biggest threat to the ACA since its inception. Even though Republicans haven’t been able to repeal the law, and the court ruled in favor of the ACA back in 2012, if this case had gone against the health care law that would have effectively put an end to “Obamacare.” That would have also meant that millions of Americans would have lost their health insurance.
In fact, the uncertainty of this ruling had put Republicans in quite a predicament. While they’ve clearly been trying to find any way possible to sabotage this law, they also realized that if millions of Americans suddenly lost their insurance, they were going to be the ones who were ultimately blamed. That’s why there was talk that, had the subsidies been struck down, congressional Republicans were going to try to pass an extension through to 2016 to essentially save their own asses. You see, the last thing Republicans wanted heading into a presidential election year was millions of Americans blaming them for losing their insurance.
Thankfully we don’t have to worry about any of that happening since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACA. And while there are other cases working their way up through the judicial ranks, none of them are as potentially impactful as the King v. Burwell case.
Now, besides the genuine surprise that the ruling was 6-3 as opposed to the usual “5-4” decisions we’re often used to seeing, what I found most interesting is that one of the dissenters, Justice Antonin Scalia, had his own words used against him by Chief Justice Roberts.
Back in 2012, part of Scalia’s dissent against the original ruling on the Affordable Care Act stated:
Without the federal subsidies, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.
In other words, Scalia admitted back in 2012 that if the subsidies didn’t exist then the law would essentially be useless – which is interesting considering he ruled against the very same subsidies in the King v. Burwell case. Scalia’s dissent on Thursday was a blatant contradiction to his 2012 remarks. Then again, I think most of us know Scalia is just a partisan, biased babbling idiot who has absolutely no business being on the Supreme Court. The day he’s no longer one of our nine justices will be a day of celebration.
We’ll probably never know if Roberts including Scalia’s 2012 remarks was meant as a jab toward the fellow Supreme Court Justice, but I do think it’s hilarious that on one of the biggest court cases in years, one of the biggest blowhards on our Supreme Court has been embarrassed publicly by having his own words used against him in support of a case he voted against.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- 10 Stats and Facts You Can Use to Educate (or Infuriate) Trumpsters - December 15, 2017
- Sanders Crashes and Burns When Asked Simple Question About Diversity of Trump Administration (Video) - December 14, 2017
- I’d Like to Address Mike Huckabee’s Laughable Insistence that Women Should Admire His Daughter (Video) - December 14, 2017