Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Thursday June 25 2015, @04:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept.

Reuters reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled 6 - 3 in favor of the nationwide availability of tax subsidies that are crucial to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, handing a major victory to the President. It marked the second time in three years that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, who added that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." The ruling will come as a major relief to Obama as he seeks to ensure that his legacy legislative achievement is implemented effectively and survives political and legal attacks before he leaves office in January 2017.

Justice Antonin Scalia took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. "We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare," said Scalia, referencing the court's earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law (SCOTUS is the acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:21PM (#201139)

    read the modern translation Glenn Beck got a college student to produce to help with that problem.

    Glenn Beck? College student? Translation from English to English? Unpossible!!!

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:32PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:32PM (#201187)

    I read old books, the language of The Federalist Papers is perfectly readable for me but a common complaint is the difficulty of modern government educated people to read it. Most modern writing is on a level that someone of the Founder's era with a sixth grade education would consider pretty dumbed down. So one day, way back when Beck was on FNC he said it would be a wonderful thing if somebody would do a translation to 'Modern English' and a college student heard it and stepped up. Beck had the kid on the show and announced that he would be publishing the book through his imprint and did so. I have now read both and can see how the translated version would be much easier to digest and understand. Nothing appears changed in the meaning of the text but there has been a fair amount of linguistic drift in two centuries, different word choices make sense now, cultural references need footnotes, breaking up long sentences with multiple dependent clauses and so on. Just generally updating the work to match the expectations of a modern audience.