AFP South Dakota Responds To Supreme Court Ruling
Court Decision Provides No Relief To The Many Struggling Under Obamacare
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Today, Americans for Prosperity South Dakota released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this morning to uphold the federal Obamacare Exchange in the controversial case, King v. Burwell:
“The Court’s decision today offers no relief to Obamacare’s many victims,” said Americans for Prosperity State Director Ben Lee. “For far too long, Obamacare’s burdensome taxes and mandates have wreaked havoc on American families and businesses. This law was hurting people yesterday, and will continue to do so tomorrow.”
“Obamacare remains wildly unpopular and for good reason: it limits access to care and has sent premiums skyrocketing. Americans for Prosperity South Dakota will continue pressing Congress to provide relief from the law’s expensive mandates, and continue fighting for patient-centered reforms that work.”
A spokesman for the chapter said they planned to direct the public to voice their discontent with the law by signing the petition at www.americansforprosperity.org/burwell.
The national organization also announced plans to launch a significant digital buy with an ad advocating for people’s health over politics, which will reach most major media markets in the United States.
Watch the video here:
IMO and that of many others the US has now officially become a dictatorship, the legislative and judicial branches both owned by the executive (Obama). Sad day for America, and the founders of this nation would be very sad to see the principles they fought and died for to start this exceptional nation now being destroyed by the governing elite while the majority of citizens don’t even realize it. Too many people are more concerned with a guy who decides he is a woman or a flag that to some must come down or the latest “Survivor” episode.
“the legislative and judicial branches both owned by the executive (Obama)”?– I do enjoy it when conservatives fall into wackydoodle land.
Well, I don’t know what you call it when neither the legislative nor the judicial will stand up against the executive.
It is called the Democratic process. We “can’t always get what we want” and it is not a requirement that the branches always disagree….The legislative branch “owned bu Obama”? Really? It seems to me the wrath of you folks should be targeted at the Repugs promising if elected their first trick would be repealing Obamacare….They lied to you people
The Repugs. have been saved from themselves by the SCOTUS and some of the most relieved and happy politicians are state and fed. Repugs.
Looks like AFP were expecting the case to go down in flames with their ready-to-post format. I guess Obama haters know what it’s like to be on the losing side of Citizens United.
The SCOTUS has just declared by a 6-3 vote their constitutional role is to not only interpret what Congress writes into law but also what they intended. Furthermore, if Congress writes a law poorly and with a lack of clarity, they can uphold the law because people might get hurt.
This is practically u fathomable to me.
Republicans all over are sick of being on the losing side all the time.
Isn’t that always the court’s role, Troy? To interpret the law in light of the legislators’ intent (or in the case of the Constitution, the “founders'” intent)? Surely you will agree that the Constitution itself (and the amendments thereof) were oftentimes linguistically imperfect and thus subject to judicial interpretation — not just by circumstance, but rather, by design. (ie. if the letter of the law was perfect, why would we need the courts?) I suggest it is only unfathomable to you because you are choosing (in this one isolated instance) to be unwilling to attempt to fathom it. It’s not really all that difficult in concept, my friend. 🙂
A Democrat majority Congress had to pass the law to find out what was in it. A dishonest Supreme Court had to ignore what was in it in order to save it.
Since the AFP conveniently neglected to substantiate the claims in the high-lighted paragraphs, can someone give the numbers and facts about those claims?
This ruling should not be a surprise to anyone. The irony of the current diatribe in Washington about racism and slavery is misplaced. Albeit not the same in terms of the horrific acts of inhumanity committed on unsuspecting souls during the days when owning slaves was viewed acceptable. Washington and the ruling elite through regulation and political conspiracy are enslaving the citizens of the US. Our ability to own property, move freely about, make our own decisions, and reap the benefits of individual hard work is slowly eroding away. We look to the slave master for housing, nourishment, safety, work, and now healthcare. We are not allowed to openly defend our value system and if we step out of line there is a price to be paid.
Slavery and bigotry is indeed alive in the US. Mostly by those who misdirect us by focusing on atrocities of the past. All the while they slowly lead us into slavery for the ruling elite. Will we ever be able to turn this around before it is too late?
MOM! JV got into the glue again!
Thank you all for voting for G.W.Bush and putting Obama in.
John Thune needs your help! He just put up another “Obamacare Bad” post on his Facebook page and he’s getting hammered by a huge majority of people who don’t think Obamacare is bad – on the contrary having the guts to actually point out that it’s helping many people.
You guys need to get over there and support Thune’s “Obamacare Bad” rhetoric and fight off all those people who are saying positive things about it. Hurry – before it’s too late!
“support Thune’s “Obamacare Bad” rhetoric”?— “Since the AFP conveniently neglected to substantiate the claims in the high-lighted paragraphs, can someone give the numbers and facts about those claims?”—Silence, I don’t think they can help Thune.
the republican party is now officially on record as arguing for the full and strict implementation of obamacare as written. states that didn’t set up their own exchanges were supposed to have their insurance customers pay higher rates, that was the point of the ACA clause. now, the republican party en masse is complaining on the record that obamacare’s worst feature in terms of states rights cannot be implemented as the law is written. i was pretty happy about the supco decision yesterday, but of course i’m one of the few republicans left who isn’t doing the political equivalent of custer’s last stand and galipoli over and over and over. go figure things out please.
with this, republicans just lost the white house in 2016, and it’s not the decision, it’s how you’re all trying to make it work politically. it’s like using checker rules on a chessboard.
Bill,
Here is the problem: the Court has now decided the “intent” was in direct conflict with the words vs. a lack of clarity or silence.
So, what we now have is a brand new combined legislative & executive branch, one that is elected no less. Whether one is liberal or conservative, a shiver should be running up the spine of every civil libertarian who thinks this is our government directed via democracy.
P.S. Let’s not forget the language had a very real intent of the Administration- an incentive for State Exchanges – and not establishing one had real consequences. The SCOTUS just determined the aren’t going to allow consequences. As a liberal who supports a stronger federal govt. with teeth, you just lost. Now States can ignore sticks because the court will rule the intent was about the carrot. This is short-term gain for your vision. Frankly, I think the first place conservatives should ignore is federal education sticks associated with carrots. We can still get the carrots anyway.
Under the interpretation of this ruling, Congress could have just passed a law that said “health insurance markets shall be improved,” and then left it to the executive agencies to decide how they wish to do it, and the Court can simply rubber-stamp whatever actions they take, as justified by their “intent.”
When the written law does not govern the of the rule of law, the “law” is merely the rule of men.
You realize you guys are talking about fixing a typo, right? 😉
Bill,
I’m not sure having the court say specific words with specific consequences are just typos. Even if I agreed wholly with the policy, I find this all quite frightening. Seriously.
If it’s “merely a type” it’s the role of the Legislature to fix it, not the role of the Court.
“typo”…
Then they should. To clarify their intent. And to help calm you all down. 🙂