Cruz: Any Candidate Unwilling To Repeal Obamacare 'Should Step Aside'

[240 is Back]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  CRUZ IS RIGHT!

Clear up the GOP waters very quickly!!!


Source: TPM

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told his fellow Republican candidates for President on Thursday that if they still aren't concentrated on wiping out Obamacare, they should drop out of the race.

“I have made repeal of this disastrous law a top priority since the first day I arrived in the Senate and have made its repeal central to my campaign," Cruz said in a statement. "Any candidate not willing to do the same—and campaign on it every day—should step aside," he added.

The rest of the statement was a colorful condemnation of the Supreme Court's "nakedly political" decision to uphold Obamacare's tax subsidies in King v. Burwell.

"(C)rocodile tears are flooding our nation’s capital today over the Supreme Court’s decision to illegally rewrite Obamacare, which has been a disaster since its inception," he said. "These robed Houdinis transmogrified a ‘federal exchange’ into an exchange ‘established by the State,'" Cruz added.

[Straw Man]

someone should ask Cruz exactly how a POTUS can repeal a law

[polychronopolous]

JUSTICE SCALIA BLASTS OBAMACARE RULING: ‘WORDS HAVE NO MEANING’



They did it again.

The Supreme Court of the United States effectively rewrote the text of Obamacare to save the legislation.

By a 6-3 majority, the Court upheld the Fourth Circuit’s decision in King v. Burwell and decided that federal subsidies were available on state Obamacare exchanges, even though the text of the so-called Affordable Care Act said that such subsidies were only available on “State” exchanges.

The majority acknowledged that the word “State” was, at best, “ambiguous.” And it rejected the idea that an executive agency, in this case the Internal Revenue Service, could decide the meaning of that term.

Rewriting the law is evidently meant for the courts, not the administration–or Congress.

The majority–led, again, by Chief Justice John Roberts, who infamously interpreted a “penalty” as a tax to uphold Obamacare’s constitutionality in 2012–held that the “context” of the word “State” mattered more than the “most natural reading.”

And the context was that Obamacare had to be saved from itself. After all, Congress could not have meant to pass a bad, self-defeating policy, could it?

The dissent, by Justice Antonin Scalia, was blistering.

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,'” he wrote.

“Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

If a law was badly formulated, that was not the Court’s problem, he argued. It was up to Congress to rescue the subsidies for Obamacare, not the Justices. And if people did not like it, tough: that was why the Justices were meant to serve life terms. They were meant to be above politics.

Instead, Scalia noted, the Court had adopted a particular political bent.

He concluded:

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years….And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

 

[Straw Man]

Scalia is just mad because he loses yet again

[Coach is Back!]

I don't know why. Obamacare isn't rendering any broke or anything.

[Straw Man]

I don't know why. Obamacare isn't rendering any broke or anything.

translation please

[240 is Back]

I don't know why. Obamacare isn't rendering any broke or anything.

''huh

[LurkerNoMore]

I don't know why. Obamacare isn't rendering any broke or anything.

Only you know what you are trying to say.  And I'm pretty sure you think it's dumb yourself.

[polychronopolous]

Cruz Amendment Makes Supreme Court Subject To Elections



After calling the last day "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is now calling for Supreme Court justices to face elections.

In a National Review op-ed published Friday, Cruz chastised the high court for its decisions to reject a major challenge to Obamacare and to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

"Both decisions were judicial activism, plain and simple," Cruz writes. "Both were lawless."

To challenge that "judicial activism," Cruz said he is proposing a constitutional amendment to require Supreme Court justices to face retention elections every eight years.

"The decisions that have deformed our constitutional order and have debased our culture are but symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial activism that has infected our judiciary," Cruz writes. "A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system. Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy."

Under Cruz's proposed amendment, justices would have to be approved by a majority of American voters as well as by the majority of voters in least half of the states. If they failed to reach the required approval rating, they would be removed from office and barred from serving on the Supreme Court in the future.

Cruz, who is running for president in 2016, was among many Republican candidates criticizing the justices after a strong week for liberals at the court.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who is expected to jump in the presidential race soon, also offered up a proposed constitutional fix to combat the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision. In a statement, Walker argued for an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman -- a proposal Cruz has also floated.