Obamacare Wins For The 3rd Time At The Supreme Court

Sgt (Join to see) That’s correct. What it may mean is it may be very difficult for anyone to show standing.

SPC Kevin Ford - My question is this - SCOTUS has no ruled that neither states nor citizens have standing to challenge this law. If neither a state nor a citizen has standing to challenge a law, what is SCOTUS there for?

I am not saying that the challenge should necessarily WIN. But if SCOTUS (effectively) says that a law - any law - simply CANNOT be challenged because no one has standing, it seems to me like they are finding a way to avoid doing their damned job.

ACA creates a burden upon the states, even if not a direct financial burden, by expanding Medicare - which is run by the states. State governments are now required to do MORE after ACA than they had to prior. Yet, somehow, states do not have a standing to challenge the ACA.

It may be in the specific wording or in the specific case brought (and I have not read the entirety of the briefs and arguments). But a ruling that the states have no standing baffles me. Again, I am not saying that they should WIN. But they should at least have the opportunity to state their case.

SFC Casey O'Mally well someone has to show actual harm. If no one can show actual harm then they are unlikely to win their case in the first place. People need more than just dislike for it to strike down a law. That type of thing needs to be solved in the political arena in Congress.

SFC Casey O'Mally - I agree 100%. Now that the mandate is effectively gone, it's hard to show harm. I believe wholeheartedly that SCOTUS punted this back to Congress and I would have definitely liked to have heard arguments on the merits of the law in front of the Court.

Why?

Where's fuhrer Trumpkkk's replacement? Lol