When SC guts ACA, in complete contradiction of all legal common sense and reality, what do the

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

people do when a SC is acting solely politically with no legal qualifications what so ever?

What do we do?

There is NO legal ground, AT ALL, to overturn ACA, all credible legal minds agree.

WHEN they do it, does that mean the rules are changed?

Do we still keep obeying the Oligarchs rules?

[Drale]

1. They already had the opportunity to declare it unconstitutional

and they didn't, why would they change course now?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

2. This is a different legal argument, they wont declare it unconstitutional but they

will take one sentence, entirely out of context, where it clearly does not mean exactly what it says in light of the rest of the bill, to end the state exchanges therefore making the law unworkable.

Remember, the goal by the SC 5 and Republican is to make certain Obama's legacy is shit.

that is ALL they care about, who they kill to get there, they dont care

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. It isn't about ending the state exchanges at all

It's about not allowing subsidies for everyone in the federal exchange, vice the state exchange.

That piece was written poorly, leaving it open to the interpretation being put forth by the plaintiffs.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

6. Right, sorry...I had it backwards - long day

[riderinthestorm]

3. Now it turns out the plaintiff doesn't have standing in the case

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026193014

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

4. I heard about this, it is a last ditch effort to use the truth to try and embarrass the SC 5

terrorists from acting politically with NO legal ground AT ALL like they did with CU...and voting rights and so on.

Will it work, hope so.

[riderinthestorm]

7. Has this any precedent? That a case gets all the way to SCOTUS

Only to be discovered at literally the last moment, that its fatally flawed in the most fundamental sense.

Can they scuttle the case this late in the game?

[former9thward]

14. It will not work.

There were 4 plaintiffs in the case. Only one is needed.

[former9thward]

13. There are four plaintiffs in the case.

Only one is needed.

[woo me with science]

8. They won't end it.

The mandate is profiting the insurance companies beyond their wildest dreams.

The Red vs. Blue corporate state and propaganda machine do not want to end the mandate. They want the faux threat and the faux battle over ending ACA as a political issue and fake bargaining chip.

Any new changes we see will leave the mandate intact but, just like the changes we have already seen, create loopholes or adjustments to increase payments by patients and profits for corporations.

[Yavin4]

9. If the SC guts the ACA, we go for Single Payer.

We make it the focal point for supporting ALL Democrats for every office. No more compromises. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

10. But you are talking common sense, here is the problem with common sense.

Almost all rank and file cons will reject it because a. they are stupid and b. they think it is socialism, which brings us back to a. they are really really stupid


Then you can count on many conservative dems including many on this very board who will oppose it, sadly.

But I hope I am wrong

[Yavin4]

11. This is the line in the sand. Death or Single Payer.

The new jobs being created do not come with health benefits. Without the ACA, it's death or Single Payer.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

12. Yep, and what you will watch are republican voters dying from lack of healthcare who

will never vote any other way.

We may have to wait for them to die off naturally, without healthcare that wont take as long as it otherwise would.

[Yo_Mama]

15. I wouldn't presume the outcome on this one. n/t