Scalia Dissents: ‘Words No Longer Have Meaning’

Posted by | June 25, 2015 11:30 | Filed under: Politics

Republish
Reprint


JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

Nevermind that the “state” can apply to both local and federal governments, and nevermind that it is important to consider the intent of the law.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Using the acronym for the Supreme Court, Scalia said his colleagues have twice stepped in to save the law from what Scalia considered worthy challenges.

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote.

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

24 responses to Scalia Dissents: ‘Words No Longer Have Meaning’

  1. arc99 June 25th, 2015 at 11:49

    I sampled the comments over at the cbslocal website this story links to.

    Right wingers are truly losing their sh*t over this. Smells like victory to me…

    • allison1050 June 25th, 2015 at 12:01

      Oh that’s certainly good to hear.

    • rg9rts June 25th, 2015 at 14:51

      They will redouble their efforts to get the WH and a major plank will be destroying ACA to save america

  2. allison1050 June 25th, 2015 at 12:00

    Well, we certainly know the old toad Supreme Court Justice Dementia Scalia’s don’t.

  3. ExPFCWintergreen June 25th, 2015 at 12:05

    And nobody’s more responsible for that than you, Mr. Justice.

  4. Foundryman June 25th, 2015 at 12:06

    Just yesterday a child threw herself down on the floor and started kicking screaming and pounding her fists in front of Obama at the Whitehouse. The President just shrugged. Today we see a whole group of right wing nuts doing the same. Life is good.

  5. jybarz June 25th, 2015 at 12:34

    STFU SCUMBAG SCALIA!

    • Wells June 25th, 2015 at 15:07

      Unfortunately, I’ll never forget the evil shit-eating grins on Scalia and Roberts
      faces when they were appointed to the Supreme Court.
      A clear signal that power corrupts.

  6. Hirightnow June 25th, 2015 at 12:46

    ‘Words No Longer Have Meaning’
    We figured THAT out when some fat idiot said that corporations were people.

  7. Robert Kennedy June 25th, 2015 at 13:14

    Scalia should know since he doesn’t think “a well regulated militia” means anything.

  8. Glen June 25th, 2015 at 13:19

    He’s right.

    I mean, think about what that word meant before this ruling. John Kerry was the Secretary for State governments, as was Hillary before him. Those roles were all about interaction between Federal and State governments, right?

    We’ll just ignore the use of the term “the State” to refer to government of any sort, right?

    • whatthe46 June 25th, 2015 at 13:53

      6 of them disagreed. so, they were right.

    • rg9rts June 25th, 2015 at 14:50

      Our nation state and other nation states…I know that is a difficult concept for you to grasp but in time it will all make perfect sense……now concentrate

      • Glen June 25th, 2015 at 23:05

        Either your sarcasometer is broken, or mine is. You do realise that I was mocking Scalia, right?

  9. fahvel June 25th, 2015 at 13:20

    scalia sounds like something relative to psoriasis.

  10. illinoisboy1977 June 25th, 2015 at 13:23

    I figured this challenge would fail. Scalia conveniently forgets that a Justice has to not only look at the wording of a law, but also at the intent and modern equivelancies (for older statutes). There are other challenges currently making their way through the lower courts. I’ll be interested to see if any of them succeed.

  11. OldLefty June 25th, 2015 at 13:58

    Is “jiggery-pokery” anything like “argel-bargel”??

    From one of our three Super Legislators?

  12. rg9rts June 25th, 2015 at 14:47

    He can be a petulant little cry baby if he doesn’t get HIS way….he was probably a bully on Long Island too

  13. robert June 25th, 2015 at 20:50

    show your belief at will judge

    your doing great !

Leave a Reply